quote:
Originally posted by Fljotsdale:
Imo, Michael Jackson NEVER made great music!
John Pilger is STILL greatly respected, and very knowledgeable! You cannot take an article from the Mirror (of all papers!) as an example of his usual style (though I can't imagine why he writes for them, apart from the money). The Mirror does NOT like facts and figures. Pilger produces them with ease, when called for, in other areas of the media.
You wouldn't like to be judged on one piece of music you wrote, would you, if it had been designed for a particular audience, but was not what you would prefer to have produced? And journalists have rather less freedom of expression than musicians! [img]smile.gif[/img]
Fljotsdale, Michael Jackson was an incredible child vocalist by anyones standards. The guy was brilliant by any definition of class vocal performance. Tone, control, emotion, timing, soul, energy, interpretation. Genius.
The albums he recorded with Quincey Jones, one of the worlds most respected producers, and a man oozing class and musical brilliance, went on to sell monsterous amounts proving that his music was
relevant. It struck a chord with a large number of people, and both reflected and inspired a generation, in terms of dance, music video approach, vocalisations and songwriting/production.
To say Michael Jackson never made great music is to place ones own taste above the historical and cultural significance of an artist.
For the record I don't own a Michael Jackson record, and don't enjoy his music.
He did in the past, make relevant, great music in the opinions of his peers, fellow craftsmen and millions upon millions of fellow humans.
As he has gone on, his estrangement from his muse - his dislocation from normality - has decreased the relevance of his music.
I would argue that the same can happen with a journalist, and that as age catches up, earlier views can become set in stone despite the world moving on.
When I read the Pilger article(s) in question, I read paranoia. I saw no factual figures, no supporting evidence for the conspiracy theory he was hypothesising. Only his much lauded opinion resting on the laurels of previous success.
I'm sorry, but I'm more cynical of the media than to swallow sensationalism like that unquestioningly. Reputation or no, the onus is on him to provide proof rather than wild speculation about motives and causes.
Hard journalism is fact driven.
Oh, Fljotsdale, no I certainly would not like it, but that is the way it works. I've been made painfully aware of that fact in the past.
I'm still in the kitchen though.
[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Yorick ]