So was he REALLY the king of pop?

Bob-Dubery · 2009-07-03T12:31:35+00:00

I've been finding the gushing and the OTT (IMO) fawning over Michael Jackson a bit stomach turning, not to mention annoying. This morning I found myself shouting at the radio "NO! He was not the %$@(*&ing king of pop! WHO says he was the %$@(*&ing king of pop and on what basis!" (or something like that). I take no pleasure in MJ's recent demise (in fact I have long felt some sympathy for him and the weird life he found himself living) and I certainly don't begrudge him the money that he made (if he actually made any) or his record sales (though I didn't contribute). But anyhoo, here's an article from The Times that makes an attempt at backing up the argument. I'm not sure I buy it lock stock and barrel, but it's nice to read something that doesn't just start from the currently fashionable assumption that MJ was a creative genius, massively influential, ground-breaking blah blah blah but tries to justify that position. I'm not sure I even agree with all 20 of their nominations of "most influential" albums - but nobody ever agrees on such things anyway, and I like the arguments that can ensue. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3277332.ece

Bob-Dubery

bigm wrote If Dylan and Young weren't influential to anyone picking up the acoustic guitar ( at any stage of their playing ) then who the hell was Bob ? Influential doesn't have to mean all encompassing and all embracing ( iow to include fashion and elevating the music video to a new art form ) just being of influence is enough.

Fair cop, Guv'nor. I was thinking (and pontificating) about influence on other artists and on "art" in general. Dylan certainly got me thinking about music and about getting myself a guitar - and that would be 1973/74, when, according to the argument I've been putting forth, he was already in decline.

We can still enjoy those ground breaking works, though they might not have the impact now that they had then because we know and have been exposed to what came next, and after that, and after that etc etc.

chris77

Apart from the bass riff in Billy Jean and the guitar fill in Black or White I have never listened to MJ and get that - Oooh, I like this - feeling. Dylan, Hendrix and Pink Floyd on the other hand... But you cant seriously compare them. MJ wanted to sell records and be loved. The others probably had different motivations. They all however have that something that appeals to different folks for different reasons. So why bother. Who would one day compare Madonna to Eva Cassidy or Janis Joplin?

« Previous Page