Nevermind.
No that is not about same age. The boys were 7 and 10. Pre-pubescent children. Very different.
That’s a silly statement. If it was all due to marketing you could market anybody and make a bazillion dollars marketing anything and you cannot do that. A huge number of people wish you could.
Marketing absolutely helps tremendously get the word out to as many people as possible. But at the end of the day, if people don’t like what they’re hearing or seeing, they’re not going to buy it, they’re not gonna tell their friends about it, and they’re not gonna buy tickets.
If marketing was all it took to make something successful, there would be no such thing as box office bombs costing tens of millions of dollars in marketing.
I think he was incredibly musical and wrote great pop songs. I’ve never actually owned an album of his, but I would never change the station when a song comes on. The stories I’ve heard of him involved him coming to the studio with full songs and parts orchestrated in his head that he would scat sing all the parts. He was a true musician, even if he didn’t play or read/write music.
A little fact checkage.
The Thriller album was released at the end of 1982.
At the end of 1983, before the “Thriller” video was released, the album had sold 32 million copies, making it the largest selling album of all time, which it remains.
The Thriller video was budgeted at 500k, an unprecedented amount at the time, but it was also for an album that had already sold 32 million copies, and it was 15 minutes long. In the end, it did end up costing 900k.
But again, for an album that was already the biggest selling album of all time.
And “Scream”, a video for an album that came out almost a dozen years later, cost $7 million.
I don’t fucking care. They can love it, I don’t have to. Yes, you can make money in a cover band. I prefer not to, and fortunately I have enough other marketable skills that I don’t have to.
I’d have to be in an amazingly successful cover band to match my current paycheck. So, no.
It’s not a silly statement. The guy was marketed like no one else. He was basically marketed from birth, and was actually good at participating in his own marketing.
A huge number of people wish they had the money and time to market themselves the way Jackson was. Jackson produced generic pop songs. The only thing that makes that record actually stand out is the marketing, such as the videos.
Yep, if the record was absolute crap, it would have bombed no matter how much they put into the marketing. This was an average record that had a person who was very skilled at marketing participating in it’s creation and media push. Besides, I’m not talking about profit.
This makes my point excellently. Even Chris Cornell, as great as he is, can only impart so much melodic input to this song. I contend, that if one feels it’s a great video, it’s only because you have prior knowledge of this song. Had this been released without MJs version ahead of it, it would not have made the charts.
So what about a short range in the melody? That’s hardly uncommon in pop music. Look at the big hit Mr Brightside!s melody in the verse. And I noticed you didn’t mention the chorus, which contrasts against the verse like one normally does, and is more melodic. (Same like the Killers song does, but it still has a pretty narrow range.)
It’s like one note through most of it.
And despite what its sales or popularity was, it’s not a great song either.
I’m talking about music quality, not sales, not popularity or the fame of the artist.
Most pop songs are melodic.
Most songs are made of contrasting parts. I love both moving melodies and static ones. I mean, look at funk music. There’s no reason melodies have to move. They’re all different ways to color the music and to limit it to a notion of wide movement is narrow minded, in my opinion.
I was referring to the first accuser, Jordan Chandler, who was 13 at the time, or a year younger than Priscilla, and the second accuser, Gavin Arvizo, who was also 13.
The two boys you are referring to from Finding Neverland had previously testified under oath that Jackson did not molest them, so there are some credibility issues there, especially the fact that one of them later said that Jackson molested them at the Neverland train station between 1988 and 1992, despite the fact that the train station wasn’t built until 1994, when the accuser was 16.
I don’t pretend to know whether or not the allegations are true or not, but the first two boys were unable to convince a court. The ones you are referring to have clear credibility issues.
I’m rather conflicted when it comes to Michael Jackson. I absolutely love all of his music from the 70’s, 80’s, and most of the 90’s. After that, he started chasing musical trends instead of sticking to what always worked for him. Regardless, he was a phenomenal natural talent we are unlikely to see the likes of again. He also had a strong humanitarian side that cannot be ignored with hundreds of millions of dollars raised for African poverty and AIDS awareness.
I also felt very sorry for him. An abusive father made him a superstar, but at what cost. Puberty inhibitors and a grueling touring schedule had to take a toll on his adolescent psyche. Once on his own, he surrounded himself with sycophants and manipulators. He became an easy target for anyone to extort him, because he appeared so strange in his personal life, preferring the company of children to other adults.
I absolutely believed the allegations revealed in “Leaving Neverland” and felt very sorry for the children that he abused. I was also pissed at the parents who allowed it to happen under their noses. Yet, when it comes to his music, I still experience joy. I saw a performance on the Bad tour and loved it. Sure, some tracks make me cringe in retrospect (PYT - Pretty Young Thing), but the vast catalog is full of wonderful music. I think the combination of the music, my sympathies for him, and the fact that he’s dead and can’t defend himself allow me to still be a fan.
Oddly, musicians I once enjoyed who’ve shown douchy behavior recently, now leave a bad taste in my mouth (Eric Clapton, Van Morrison), even though their behavior is much less egregious than MJ’s. Go figure.
My comment about pop music being melodic was a response to pulykamell’s comment that unwavering melody lines were
I disagree. Regardless, I’m sure there are less than melodic songs I like, but I wouldn’t call them great.
I have an extremely wide range of music appreciation, probably more than most. But this isn’t about that, it’s about whether this song is great.
I agree with your entire post and want to thank the OP for bringing up the king of pop. Enjoying a deep dive into his music.
[Moderating]
@scabpicker , if you don’t like pop music, then you are free to simply not participate in threads about pop music. There’s no need to pop in, repeatedly, just to threadshit.
We’re definitely going to disagee on that then. Plus Billy Jean has a fantastic melody in the chorus (plus pre chorus) that contrasts with the haunting tonally restricted verse. It’s an awesome song and that bass riff, too, man. Hooks galore in that song.
That’s fine then, I’m no music critic. Music is a very subjective thing and I can only share what I feel. I don’t think it’s a bad song, I just don’t think it’s as great as it’s perceived. And like most MJ music, to my ears, sounds homogenous.
I was more disagreeing that it’s not common for pop songs to have a very restricted set of notes, especially in something like the verse. It’s not at all unusual, and I would go so far as to say it’s common enough to be completely unremarkable, especially in recent pop. But it’s usually offset with a hooky, melodic chorus as contrast.
Same here, though I haven’t gotten over Michael Vick and his dog fighting fuckery. Luckily I’m not subjected to him - whatever he’s doing these days - so I don’t have to bother boycotting him.