veronica 2 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Proving the old adage that death can be a great career move, I note with little suprise that 15 of the 20 current top selling CDs are by the newly departed Mr Jackson. What entirely I fail to understand is why this happens. I mean, if you were a fan, surely you would already own these records [we're not talking about any "new" or hastily cobbled together tribute package here] and if you weren't a fan, surely his death isn't suddenly make you go want to fill a large MJ shaped hole in your record collection. Or is that just me? Link to post Share on other sites
Error404 0 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Totally agree, I can't understand it either. Unless 'most people are just gormless idiots' explains it (which it may well!) What really annoys me is the near total absence of criticism with regards the quality of Michael Jackson's recorded work. For every decent song there is a steaming pile of dung like 'Heal the World'. But across the television networks there is a blanket acceptance that just about everything he did was genius, which is quite obviously bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 depends on you music preferences really doesnt it error404... some people may actually prefer the songs you think are bollocks. But yes I agree - why it happens is beyond me. As a child my mother bought me the Double Fantasy Album (on cassette) after John Lennon was shot, I was stoked as to that point all the John Lennon songs I had were taped off the radio and were annoyingly talked into. But as an adult would I buy MJ music just because he is now passed? NO. If I want a song I will buy it and download to my ipod - and maybe his passing would remind me to get a song or three (it hasnt yet), but it would not be a knee jerk purchasing action. I dont get that either. Link to post Share on other sites
veronica 2 Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 I think Error's point was the fact that there seems to be some slight oversight when we were now constantly being told that everything he did was a masterpiece. I don't think many people would argue that. Disclaimer: people would have to pay me for MJ songs to be on my ipod or cd player. I strongly dislike most of what I have heard of his and his 'singing' and 'dancing' and everything that surrounds it all really gets on my nerves quite a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 whatabout paintings? Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 All those 50M copies of Thriller will be on record and cassette I guess. The music industry staple, pay twice for the same thing in a different container. You don't have to sell many to get in the Top 20 these days either, I suppose. Its like all those things about Girls Aloud having more No.1s than the Beatles (or whoever). Its no big achievement any more. 100,000 eight year olds and you're in. Jacko was not a genius and ended his life a repulsive freak, but he was way more popular than anyone else in his heyday. Unlike the majority of the older "musicians" still milking it for what they can, he was actually pretty talented to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites
sanjo 2 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 How much of Thriller was down to MJ and how much was down to Quincy Jones. Was it not he who was the mastermind producer who gave it it's sound and beats? I'm in the 'baffled by his success' camp too. Still can't make out what the lyrics are to Thriller. "Coz this is thriller?"? Link to post Share on other sites
sanjo 2 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 'Cause this is thriller, thriller night Ah. Deep. He should sing them clearer. Link to post Share on other sites
charlotte 0 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Some girl in our office is a huge MJ fan. She went out and bought all his albums on CD on Friday when she heard the news. She already had a copy of them of course. She will buy all the crap that is released from now too, repackaged etc. She is that nutty. I don't get it at all. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 and Neverland will become a Graceland. Oh dear. Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Originally Posted By: Error404 What really annoys me is the near total absence of criticism with regards the quality of Michael Jackson's recorded work. For every decent song there is a steaming pile of dung like 'Heal the World'. But across the television networks there is a blanket acceptance that just about everything he did was genius, which is quite obviously bollocks. Well, death isn’t really a time to criticize a person’s work. Look at John Lennon. When he died, everything he did was turned to gold. Lennon’s someone I actually like, but he truly made a load of crap for every couple of good songs that he made. Now I’m not a Jackson fan. I kind of thought that other people wrote most of his tunes for him and that he just sang and danced until I checked out Thriller on wikipedia. You’ve got to give credit to Quincy Jones and few people who contributed to the album. But Jackson wrote about half the songs. And not the crap ones either. Songs like Billy Jean. The whole album is actually really solid. There’s no crap on there. I’m not going to spend money on it because it’s not my thing but it is an excellent example of quality pop. .....Actually, on the same subject, I play guitar and there are some guys who I’ve been jamming with and we’ve got a gig coming up. We kind of threw the band together and have played previous gigs doing ‘classic rock’ cover tunes mainly coz they’re easy to do. But this time I wanted to do something heavier and darker so I copied a few songs and gave them to the bass player. (I don’t want to be a dictator but I’m the guy who has to stand at the front and play the guitar and sing.) The bass player’s cool and I think he’s happy to play anything but actually a day or two later he responded by email suggesting that after the gig we work on “I want you back†by the Jackson 5. Umm... Pretty hard to find middle ground there. I think as a compromise I’ll suggest a darkish hard rock version of Billy Jean. (That’s not a joke.) Link to post Share on other sites
gerard 6 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 And don't worry Thursday. Neverland won't become Graceland. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I thought Thriller was poor and preferred the earlier stuff. I reckon Jacko had the raw talent to be a great, but he ended up making lots of (unfortunately increasingly) indulgent pop/pap. Instead of letting them slide, Quincy Jones should have told him to button it with all the breathiness and the "woah" and "yeah" and "shamone" because Jacko was a great singer who didn't need any of such fakery. Like the glove and spangly socks, it was all gimmicky bollocks. I think "Beat It" was the turning point where he went from simple happy singer of disco-ey pop music to some preachy berk in love with some characture of himself. There isn't that pretentiousness on "Off the Wall". Even with the OTT idiosyncrasies, Jackson could still sing, and there are some great acapellas on Youtube. Compare them with this effort.... Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 The MancMonkey never was much of a singer was he!? Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 He is a laughably bad singer. As for 'shamone', wtf is that anyway?! Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 michael jackson used it in his music. means anything you want. shamone! yo that was nice. SHAMONE! Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (google was my friend) Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Oh MR Wiggles! THAT was horrid to listen to! Thanks so much (not). Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Originally Posted By: Error404 Unless 'most people are just gormless idiots' explains it (which it may well!) pretty much sums it up Thriller was good, so was Billie Jean, his early Motown stuff is ok as well other than that he was pish Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Originally Posted By: scouser The MancMonkey never was much of a singer was he!? I dunno why it changed, but the Guardian's initial response to Jacko's death was a brief note and a link to some special by Paul Morley interviewing some folk including Browny about his cover versions. That's how I found out about them. I was a bit surprised to hear him going on about liking Michael Jackson. He kept well quiet about it before. He's a dodgy singer, but I guess he was always about the attitude anyway. If they want to know a true Manc legend's opinion about Michael Jackson, they should have asked Morrissey! Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Ian Brown is a strange one isn't he. Got to think that he would not exist if it were not for the Roses. Seen some clips of his live performances they were just ....... really bad. Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 another Ian Brown number....actually don't mind this too much Link to post Share on other sites
Tubby Beaver 209 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I saw Ian Brown play at T in the Park a few years ago and he sucked....huffy barsteward, shouted at the tech people saying he couldn't hear himself sing (unfortunately we WERE able to), then he kicked the speakers off the stage. The tent was rocking when he did the Stone Roses numbers...but other than that it was pretty shit Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 His last album was actually quite good. Singing as per Ian Brown but every track had a strings-type backing. Interesting it was. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 OK, time to ask. Who the hell is he? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts