Post by A _L_ P Post by Kerry Post by bubba ray Post by A _L_ P Post by ChristianKnight
Michael was good . He had the greatestest selling Album of all time.
He made dancing like a robot very popular .
He danced to the beat like his body was the drum and each tone was a
movement of it's own.
What a good image.
Post by ChristianKnight
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
Ye-e-ess, I'd have said it was the rhythm that drove his movements,
singing with his whole body.
Post by ChristianKnight
John Lennon had little dance to note and his song imagine seems like a
wine from a little boy not wanting to go to church with his rich
Here's someone else who thinks 'Imagine' is one of the most overrated
songs in music history.
Post by A _L_ P
How true. For jejune idealism it's on a par with Paul's syrupy Ebony and
Ivory. John Lennon didn't do "deep" half as well as he thought he did
for all his half-baked idealism. They were great when they did
excellent message-free music with a whole new sound.
Nothing any of the Beatles did after they split came even close to
songs like 'Help' or 'Hard Day's Night'.
Help and Hard Days Night are your examples of the best of the Beatles?
I rest my case about you knowing nothing about music
I was looking for that quote - I thought it was by Clive James but can't
be sure and can't find it now - about how Fred Astaire was at his best
before he became an artist and remembered he was a hoofer, when I came
"But I do nothing that I don't like, such as "inventing" up to the arty
or "down" to the corny. I happen to relish a certain type of corn. What
I think is the really dangerous approach is the "let's be artistic"
attitude. I know that artistry just happens. "
This may or may not be what bubba ray's getting at. It certainly
underpins I feel about the Beatles' music and why I think their plain
old GREAT!!! music got a bit shaky when the artistic egos bloomed.
Ringo never had much originality, OTOH he avoided getting notions above
his ability. George, I think, best managed to introduce his evolving
ideas into music that succeeded as music. Paul always teetered on the
cusp of mawkishness. and John believed sincerely that his ideas were
deep enough already without further examination, and he wasn't short of
fans who assured him this was true.
I agree with that assessment, and it also helps explain why neither
Lennon or McCartney could write anything as good as what they wrote
together. Paul once explained it this way - he was writing an upbeat
song called 'Getting better all the time' which appears on their Sgt
Pepper album. John added the line 'Couldn't get much worse' which
changed the whole vibe of the song and saved it from the depths of
What I disagree with is people calling Michael Jackson an artist. Was
he talented? Yes. Did he work hard and deserve the success he got?
Yes. Was he a phenomenon? Yes. But he didn't create anything new like
the Beatles or Elvis did. In fact he wasn't in a metaphysical sense
even a person. He was Michael Jackson, Inc. He was a business. And not
that there's anything wrong with that. There's been plenty of musical
acts who were/are pure commercial - Wham, Robbie Williams, any boy
band, etc. But let's not call their work art.