Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is it fair to blame/credit MJ for the state of pop music today?
DailyBuzz
Member Posts: 2,306
I don't know if any of you ever watch CBS's Sunday Morning show, but Bill Flanagan did the most objective review (IMO) of Jackson's career path, ambitions, and influence this past Sunday. As I watched it, I started to think to myself, "yea, he did have that affect, and it turned out incredibly bad" (no pun intended).
After watching that segment a second time (and reading it once more), I think I'm ready to say that Michael Jackson is to blame for the current state of pop music. Obviously, if you like the current state of pop music, then feel free to credit him with how it has progressed, or to disagree with the extent of his influence.
Michael Jackson presided over the third and final big bang of the rock 'n' roll era.
The first explosion was Elvis. That was about sexual liberation and racial integration, and that blast lasted about ten years.
The second explosion was the Beatles - and everything they issued in. Suddenly pop music was about long hair and experimental sounds, progressive politics and outlaw rhetoric. Rock was about a counter-culture. That blast reverberated for 20 years, right through Springsteen, Prince and U2.
The third explosion was "Thriller," Michael Jackson's 1982 album - the bestselling record of all time, and an album that invented the pop world we are still living in 25 years later.
"Thriller" re-merged pop music with mainstream entertainment. After twenty years of anti-glamour, pop became again what it had been before the Sixties - part of show business. After "Thriller," pop was about not just how you sounded but how you looked, how you dressed, how you danced.
Michael Jackson ushered in a new era after the long reign of the counterculture. He did Pepsi commercials and met with President Reagan. He did not pretend not to care about commercial success - he wanted to break all the old records. Michael did not idolize Dylan and Hendrix - he idolized Elizabeth Taylor and Walt Disney.
The Michael Jackson model has ruled pop music for 26 years, and it shows no sign of ending. He made the world safe for MTV and Madonna, "Flashdance" and "Footloose," Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake.
A student of P.T. Barnum, Jackson courted crazy rumors and publicity stunts - and at some point that hunger for tabloid headlines turned on him. He fed a beast, and the beast bit him.
At some point Michael seemed to forget about being a musician and got lost in being a star.
But one crucial fact often gets overlooked in all the statistics and hype and hoopla: Michael Jackson was amazingly talented.
Those Motown records he made as a kid ("I Want You Back") were fantastic, but it was when Michael grew up and took control of his own creativity that he gave us "Beat It," "Wanna Be Starting Something," "Billie Jean." The first time you heard those songs, with their snaking rhythms and beautiful playing and strange, almost paranoid lyrics, you had to pull the car over to the side of the road to figure out what was going on.
This was a new kind of popular music, so compelling that, like Elvis and the Beatles before him, Michael Jackson moved the mainstream.
If Michael Jackson had not been able to write those songs and sing them so powerfully, none of the rest of the circus would have mattered.
And now that he's gone, once the gossip and the exploitation and the vultures pass by, the music he made is what will remain.
Comments
Pop is short for popular music, and because of that pop music has been around in various forms for centuries...so no I don't think he had anything to do with it as there were many artists that influenced pop music as we have it today.
--
Michael
Obviously many artists had an influence on those that proceeded them. However, several points in the article aren't really debatable.
This had a profound effect on the social aspects of American culture. Everything from race relations to women's liberation. The music that followed reflected that influence.
This, again, had a huge impact on America's social norms. People became more involved in the political process. Young people fought for their voices in a society dominated by old world power structures. Again, the music reflects this influence to this day (though it fades more with each day that passes).
I give him credit for philanthropy. After all, he did gather the artists who offered "We are the World". He also wrote several poignant songs that I personally enjoy. However, the type of influence he wielded was not unlike Elvis or the Beatles, and it offered another opening for a cultural shift. This is when I begin to question how beneficial that cultural shift was for our society. All the glitz and glamor, the paparazzi baiting, the voracious appetite for world domination without a message to deliver, only for the sake of stardom. These qualities of Jackson's career goals were unlike his predecessors. I, for one, think they worked as detriment to the future of music, not to enhance it.
In the Paul Simon song Boy in the Bubble he sings, "every generation throws a hero up the pop charts". It makes me wonder what happened to our musical heroes. It used to be they worked toward progress, feeedoms, rights, and equality. At what point did we willingly trade those for ones that are only in search of fame?
Wow, that analysis is really insightful. It is true, Michael Jackson created the Britney Spears style pop-music world that we know today. It is a terrible thing, because the man was not true to his art, he was more worried about being an icon and after thriller he really didn't produce anything particularly memorable. It became more about image and stopped being about music.
The one and only.
Coincidentally, it is interesting to note that the rise of Jackson in the late '70s and early '80s coincided with the death of John Lennon. And I would argue that Lennon was just as much of a media sensation as Jackson ever was, but for totally different reasons.
Jackson was a showman of the highest caliber. He was exciting to watch, and this excitement carried through from the live stage to the television.
Lennon was, quite frankly, boring to watch. If he had lived through to today, he'd be just like all of those other old rock and rollers playing now and then for our moms and dads to remind them of the "good old days," but the radio would have long abandoned him.
Here's why. His music had a message, but somehow the message became more important than the show toward the end...and I would argue, the music too (Yookooo...I love you sooo?). It was a much different vibe than he had back when he was performing live in the black suits straight from Liverpool. Back then, rock and roll was exciting. After the Summer of Love, however, rock and roll started to decline.
A good example of this can be seen in acts from that era: they'd sit down on some chair and sing sleepy ballads (kind of like James Taylor or the Eagles who epitomize that era), and really could care less whether the audience were getting a good show or not.
I don't think that Jackson rose out of a vacuum. The later half of the '70s saw a rebellion against rock and roll...and I think it was well deserved. Rock and roll started to look really worn out, and what's worse, unconnected to the needs of the public. Even the thing that made acts like Lennon still relevant started to die out, as people would go to packed stadiums to see bands like ELO and Stix...but all they saw was a bunch of guys who played music that really didn't mean much, and didn't really have much showmanship other than five guys standing and playing.
Jackson, however, was a showman. He cut his teeth in Motown, but he was young enough to keep the same sort of excitement that made Motown appealing in the '60s alive for a new generation. He understood the appeal of disco to breathe life into the ordinary hum-drum of life, but stopped short of the excesses that made disco a farce. He learned how to combine music and stagecraft on Broadway and brought back the kind of showmanship that made Elvis and the Beatles so exciting to an audience that was getting tired of seeing some balding guitarist sitting on a stool singing about fire and rain (and I like James Taylor as much as the next guy...maybe at a coffee house for a drink cover).
Maybe the music wasn't "cerebral," but then again, who wants a lecture when going to a concert? We can't say he wasn't exciting to watch...I don't even like his music, but I can't keep my eyes off the guy in his videos. He influence extends beyond music to include his influence in dance (probably the most innovative jazz dancer since Fosse), his influence on television (perfected the art of music video), and his influence on concert staging.
...And if that ain't something music can be proud of, I don't know what is.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
...And incidentally, do you really think that these pop diva wannabees like Spears today can bust a move like Jackson? Is there anything compelling about Lady GaGa's videos besides seeing her leotarded ass for a couple of seconds doing nothing but grind on some dude? The showmanship is just a bad copy of Jackson, because they don't have the kinds of experiences that Jackson had. They weren't there at Mowtown. They weren't in the discos. They weren't on Broadway...and they sure don't rehearse their dance moves like Jackson did every day until he literally collapsed.
Frankly, I think the vapid nature of opo music has more to do with Madonna than Jackson.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Let's not forget to mention the DEATH PLUNGE in the quality of popular music brought about by the popularity of "american idol" type shows where bozos that would seem mediocre even at karaoke night at your local pub are elevated to "pop star" status.
Also when I saw that AC/DC had sold out and put their music in one of these pathetic crap "rock band" video games a small part of me died.
That's pretty much the start and finish of it all. They all sold out, and in doing so became caricatures of themselves.
Why do all "rock" bands consist of whining little twits these days?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
That's funny; I was thinking about this thread today as I was out -- and I thought the same thing about madonna being more responsible for the worst of today's pop performers than MJ.
That and MTV and the Post MTV world we live in. Those things, combined with Michael, made the VISUAL nature as important as the music, if not moreso.
Now, excuse me while I google up some leotarded ass
fishermage.blogspot.com
Perhaps because the AUDIENCE it speaks to are whining little twits themselves?
Welcome to the entitlement generation.
fishermage.blogspot.com
"Michael Jackson presided over the third and final big bang of the rock 'n' roll era."
I'm not sure how that guy started off wrong, but he sure did. Micheal Jackson didn't preside over the third rock n' roll era. He wasn't even in Rock and Roll at all. He was Soul/Rhythm and Blues/Pop. That's kind of an insult to Jackson in that he wasn't aiming for anything other than making music.
I think he should have a lot of credit because of his fusioning so many different styles of music together and got a lot of people to try things they wouldn't normally do.
Sting is another person who doesn't fit a pigeonhole that that author might think. Some people think Sting is Rock and Roll, some think some British style of Ska or something else. But I think if you asked Sting, he'd probably consider himself a Jazz man at heart.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I don't take isue so much with his music as with all the other facets of self-promotion. Jackson wanted to be the "king of pop", a goal which he eventually achieved. It's the manner in which he did it that I think diminished the quality of future music. His music wasn't bad. It's not really my thing, but I'm certainly not the barometer for good or bad music. However, his music was not what propelled him to icon status, it was the image.
Dance, while it may be entertaining, does not make the music better, it only makes for a more elaborate spectacle. Video, while it can be artistic, does not make the music better either. Dance and video DO NOT improve the quality or substance of the music, and without these aspects Jackson would not have been the "king of pop".
Don't get me wrong, I credit Jackson with trying his damnedest to make quality music. I can hardly slight the guys efforts, considering he was unlike the average American from his earliest years. However, don't believe for a second that his album sales didn't soar when he went on crazy PR tangents and courted the paparazzi. Likewise, don't think the labels didn't notice this and build it into the entertainment business model.
Where Elvis and the Beatles paved the way for an African-American "king of pop" (MJ) or a female "queen of pop" (Madonna), what did Jackson do to further broaden the spectrum for future musicians? He made it possible to become a superstar on nothing more than image, dance, and video. Basically, all the things that don't require actual talent. I don't dispute that Jackson was an incredibly talented guy, I think that goes without saying. It has also been apparent, during all eras, that a record label could create a product out of an individual and turn a profit from it. The current pop music scene does not reflect this, however, because it is NOTHING BUT those products, nearly devoid of any talent at all.
I never heard of a singer lip-syncing during a live performance prior to Michael Jackson. Milli Vanilli won a grammy for god sakes. I think Jackson's influence on the industry and American culture was directly to blame both for Milli Vanilli's existence and the academy's readiness to reward such "artists".
I have to agree on the fact that pop music today is nowhere as good as the pop music in the early 2000s, 90s, 80s, and even the 70s... but to blame Michael Jackson for the poor pop music today is outrageously crazy and insipid! Yes, Michael Jackson might have influence the various artists in today's time but it's their fault for their poor music. What many people probably do not know about Michael Jackson is that he writes his own song - that's another reason for his fame! He's not the kind of artists who waits around in his house for years waiting for other people to write songs for him. If you look at today's pop music, the successful artists either can write good songs or pay lots of money for other people to write good songs for them... to name a few, Neyo, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and those country singers which I'm not a huge fan of but they get my respect. We have a lot of incredible singers in the world but without good song writing it will be hard to produce incredible pop music.
My opinion is MJ did move the mainstream, but is not to be blamed for the state of the mainstream music of today. That resides with the major labels in their attempt to keep to a deconstructing business model.
If ever possible, I would recommend for anyone interested about the music industry, to attend a siminar of how to break into the main music industry, just for informational purposes. Even "they" know the music they are putting out is garbage. It is not about the lyrics, music and to some extent musical talent, it is about the package/image.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I don't think MJ really had much influence after the late 80s.
He'd probably be alive today if he'd built some good relationships instead of spending the rest of his career chasing fame and buying everything in sight.
My youtube MMO gaming channel