Michael Jackson dead at age 50. (possibly)

[drumstuck]

Originally Posted by Goats_On_Unicycles

He wasn't a genious by any stretch of the imagination, but he certainly was innovative in pop music.
Of course, lots of that probably had to do with his close association with Quincy Jones (who's always full of fresh ideas).

Just like how The Beatles weren't particularly good musicians or lyricists, they changed pop music forever.

Where do you even begin to dissect such a wrong statement?

Ask any drummer about Ringo Starr...

Google Lennon and MCCartney songwriting

Listen to their music

[peleschramm]

I like Beatles lyrics.

Like Fool on the Hill's lyrics are pretty good.

I also like their music.

Yeah.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Originally Posted by drumstuck

Where do you even begin to dissect such a wrong statement?

Ask any drummer about Ringo Starr...

Google Lennon and MCCartney songwriting

Listen to their music

I do listen to their music and whereas I wouldn't consider myself a fan, I do like their music.

Ask any drummer about Ringo, they'll tell you that Ringo is an okay drummer who dosen't really do anything other than typical rock beats, but was the drummer for an innovative pop group.
Their songs aren't all that creative but they were the first to come out with that style and sound.

Just like punk, they lack technical sophistication and musical training, but they left a huge mark on the music world.

If you ask any musician/musicologist or anyone who is even slightly trained in music, they'll tell you that the Beatles were not good musicians.
However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they were a landmark in pop music history and development.

[munirocks]

Well alright, I can't resist participating in this thread any longer.
To say that Michael Jackson was not a genius and to say the Beatles were not good musicians and lyricists are some pretty arrogant statements IMHO. While I don't listen to MJ at all and have many many musicians I prefer listening to including the Beatles, I do think he did what he did very well. The problem is that I don't like that kind of music with a few exceptions. But I have a whole lot of respect for that kind of talent and skill etc. Just not my cup of tea.
The Beatles were in my opinion great musicians with an absolutely stunning creativity especially in their later albums. They were technically not real good instrumentalists in the sense of true virtuosity, but they didn't need to be that because they were able to create great songs with the skills they had at their disposal. Looking at Ringo Star I do agree that he has/had quite a few technical deficits, but I do think he was an innovator at the time and probably just the right drummer for the Beatles. As a matter of fact I actually find those little technical imperfections quite interesting in comparison to some of the overproduced bands of our times (like MJ).
Anyways, I just had to add my 2ct.

RIP MJ

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

I think you said what I was trying to say more clearly than I could have.

But there's a huge difference between "genious" and just "doing very well".

In other words, it takes a lot to be a genious, and whereas Michael Jackson and The Beatles were creative and succesful, they weren't "geniouses".

[Into the blue]

A journalist once asked John Lennon if Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the world.
John replied "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles."

Coincidentally didn't Michael Jackson own a lot of the Beatles music?

[munirocks]

Originally Posted by Into the blue

A journalist once asked John Lennon if Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the world.
John replied "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles."

That is really funny. But I don't believe Paul McCartney is/was actually a better drummer than him. But he reportedly played some of the Beatles drum tracks in the studio.

Originally Posted by Into the blue

Coincidentally didn't Michael Jackson own a lot of the Beatles music?

Yes, that's right. But I think Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono bought the rights back recently. Not quite sure about that one, though.

[critter]

Originally Posted by Goats_On_Unicycles

Just like punk, they lack technical sophistication and musical training, but they left a huge mark on the music world.

The best music is simple.

Like Green Day.

A Genius can be someone who can take simple music and make it have mass appeal.

Real geniuses are boring. aren't they?

[wickedbob]

Selling something simple doesn't make you a musical genius. It makes you a really, really good sales man.... also could mean the public follows fads and you just got lucky. Possibly a combination.


Farrah Fawcett died and went to heaven. God granted her one wish. She wished all children to be safe, so god killed Micheal Jackson.

Since Micheal Jackson is 98% plastic there going to melt him down and make legos so children can play with him for once.

[peleschramm]

I think that it's good to make simple music that sounds good. To be completely honest, I couldn't care less how hard a song is to play, as long as it sounds good. Whether someone is a genius or not for writing simple music, that's debatable. I've written some very very simple little tunes that I thought sounded pretty good, but I'm really no musical genius at all (I can't really play any instrument well). Really it's something that anyone CAN do.

Luck and Sales skill does have a lot to do with it a lot of the time, but the thing is, there's something more than just luck and good businessman skills if while you are doing things fairly simply, you are still doing things that don't sound like anyone before you and you can still make them sound good. It's easy to write a catchy and simple tune, but it's hard to write a catchy and simple tune that is even remotely original.

Originally Posted by wickedbob

Farrah Fawcett died and went to heaven. God granted her one wish. She wished all children to be safe, so god killed Micheal Jackson.

Since Micheal Jackson is 98% plastic there going to melt him down and make legos so children can play with him for once.

I'll be honest, I didn't find that funny at all.

[wickedbob]

Originally Posted by peleschramm

I'll be honest, I didn't find that funny at all.

I'll be honest, I did.

[Into the blue]

Originally Posted by wickedbob

I'll be honest, I did.

Tell you what, I'll go and make some jokes in the Billy Mays thread.

Will you find that funny too?

[crazyjoe]

Originally Posted by wickedbob

I'll be honest, I did.

So did I. My friend did, too.

[crazyjoe]

Originally Posted by Into the blue

Tell you what, I'll go and make some jokes in the Billy Mays thread.

Will you find that funny too?

If it's a good joke I will. And I'm deeply saddened by his death. I just know how to have a sense of humor even during sad times.

[Mikefule]

Fascinating: Michael Jackson's albums are now topping the charts, which implies all those people who now think he was fantastic hadn't thought he was sufficiently fantastic for them to buy those same albums when he was alive.

There's a whole new Princess Diana thing going on here. People are suddenly agreeing that they really really liked Jackson, even though they'd probably not given him a second thought for years. There is a lot of "groupthink" going on.

Buddy Holly topped the singles chart shortly after his death, but with a single he had only released shortly before. The aptly titled, "I guess it doesn't matter any more."

When Elvis died, one single (aptly titled "Way Down") hit number 1.

The BBC had it about right today when they asked a commentator how history would view Michael Jackson, and the response was (I paraphrase) "History will see him as one of the great figures in popular music from the second half of the 20th century, up there with Elvis and the Beatles."