Discussion:
Michael Jackson vs John Lennon vs Elvis Presley
(too old to reply)
Will Spencer
2009-06-27 01:29:52 UTC
Permalink
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.

But who was the greatest?

-ws
Fred
2009-06-27 01:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
Greatest what?

Vocalist - Elvis.

Muician/composer - John Lennon.

Dancer - Michael Jackson
Roger Dewhurst
2009-06-27 02:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
Greatest what?
Vocalist - Elvis.
Muician/composer - John Lennon.
Dancer - Michael Jackson
Pederast?

R
Me
2009-06-27 01:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
If it's a game of "odd man out", then you'd have a hard time proving
that Lennon was an "addict", and an even harder time showing that his
own drug use might have contributed to his own death.

Who was the greatest out of those three? IMO probably Elvis, but Elvis
wasn't greater than the Beatles.
Fred
2009-06-27 02:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
If it's a game of "odd man out", then you'd have a hard time proving that
Lennon was an "addict", and an even harder time showing that his own drug
use might have contributed to his own death.
Who was the greatest out of those three? IMO probably Elvis, but Elvis
wasn't greater than the Beatles.
Well said.
Mister Scooter
2009-06-27 12:51:03 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:58:00 +1200, Re: Michael Jackson vs John Lennon vs
Post by Me
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
If it's a game of "odd man out", then you'd have a hard time proving
that Lennon was an "addict", and an even harder time showing that his
own drug use might have contributed to his own death.
Lennon had conquered his heroin addiction and was on a comeback when he was
killed.
Post by Me
Who was the greatest out of those three? IMO probably Elvis, but Elvis
wasn't greater than the Beatles.
Which Elvis? The fat Elvis or the thin Elvis?

--
Watch this space.
Roger Dewhurst
2009-06-27 02:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.

R
Post by Will Spencer
-ws
A _L_ P
2009-06-27 02:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
....to ______________, you forgot to say.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? The use of palm oil in chocolate - yes. Music,
entertainment - no.
Roger Dewhurst
2009-06-27 03:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
....to ______________, you forgot to say.
Juveniles?
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? The use of palm oil in chocolate - yes. Music,
entertainment - no.
Music? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

R
Fred
2009-06-27 04:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
....to ______________, you forgot to say.
Juveniles?
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? The use of palm oil in chocolate - yes. Music,
entertainment - no.
Music? Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I think if you total up the combined sales of those three, you might decide
you're outvoted by the world at large.
Jack Spratt
2009-06-27 10:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
....to ______________, you forgot to say.
Juveniles?
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? The use of palm oil in chocolate - yes. Music,
entertainment - no.
Music? Pull the other one, it has bells on.
I think if you total up the combined sales of those three, you might
decide you're outvoted by the world at large.
Leave him in his rocking chair pumping his fist and bemoaning the young of
today
victor
2009-06-27 11:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Spratt
Leave him in his rocking chair pumping his fist and bemoaning the young
of today
"And get off my lawn!"
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 04:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
I think if you total up the combined sales of those three, you might
decide you're outvoted by the world at large.
Record sales or ticket sales?
Fred
2009-06-29 05:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Fred
I think if you total up the combined sales of those three, you might
decide you're outvoted by the world at large.
Record sales or ticket sales?
Yes.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 05:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Fred
I think if you total up the combined sales of those three, you might
decide you're outvoted by the world at large.
Record sales or ticket sales?
Yes.
Fun fact: one is in terminal decline, one is not.
PB1952
2009-06-27 05:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
All supremely irrelevant.
....to ______________, you forgot to say.
Juveniles?
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Will Spencer
But who was the greatest?
Who was the most irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? The use of palm oil in chocolate - yes. Music,
entertainment - no.
Music? Pull the other one, it has bells on.
R
lol...
Do you have any musical training or is your taste in music the benchmark for
good music?


***@gmail.com
bubba ray
2009-06-27 05:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).

John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.

No comparison really.
PB1952
2009-06-27 06:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).

John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.

No comparison really.


Some people are saying MJ is the Mozart of our time. lol
Other people are saying he was a genius. Clearly they don't know what a
genius is.
There is nothing in his back catalogue that is comparable to Mozart or that
will leave a lasting mark on the history of mankind
like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, da Vinci or Michelangelo.
One can only assume that people making statements like this have never
listened to Mozart.

***@gmail.com
PB1952
2009-06-27 06:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).

John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.

No comparison really.



One thing that can be said for MJ is he was 'a true original'. partly
because of his oddness and also because he made entertainment a total
stage package .
--
***@gmail.com
pystol
2009-06-27 11:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative.  Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
You're the expert, I guess?
bubba ray
2009-06-27 13:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by pystol
Post by bubba ray
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative.  Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
You're the expert, I guess?
In my honest opinion I'm always 100% right in my opinions.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 04:33:05 UTC
Permalink
In message <05b2305e-
Post by bubba ray
In my honest opinion I'm always 100% right in my opinions.
I can go one better than you. I may be wrong about 10% of the time, but I
know it, so even when I'm wrong, I'm right about being wrong. Thus, I get to
be right 110% of the time.
Mister Scooter
2009-06-27 12:53:08 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:17:29 +1200, Re: Michael Jackson vs John Lennon vs
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
No comparison really.
One thing that can be said for MJ is he was 'a true original'. partly
because of his oddness and also because he made entertainment a total
stage package .
Jacksons only talent was to surround himself by very talented people, producers
like Quincy Jones, he could make a hit out of someone farting in the bath.
--
Watch this space.
BR
2009-06-28 07:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
The Beegees did the same thing.

Bill.
Jack Spratt
2009-06-28 08:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by bubba ray
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
The Beegees did the same thing.
Bill.
Albeit with their testicles in a vice.
victor
2009-06-28 09:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Spratt
Post by BR
Post by bubba ray
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
The Beegees did the same thing.
Bill.
Albeit with their testicles in a vice.
They had a career from 1967 to 1975 before anyone (Mardin) suggested
singing falsetto on Nights on Broadway as the follow up to Jive Talkin.
They hadn't charted for three years before that in a different genre so
it was very similar to Michael Jackson
Will Spencer
2009-06-27 06:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.

-ws
ChristianKnight
2009-06-27 07:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
 Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
A _L_ P
2009-06-27 08:24:44 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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.

A L P
bubba ray
2009-06-27 08:47:07 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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'.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
Kerry
2009-06-27 12:30:44 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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'.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
Help and Hard Days Night are your examples of the best of the Beatles?

I rest my case about you knowing nothing about music
bubba ray
2009-06-27 13:39:07 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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'.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
Help and Hard Days Night are your examples of the best of the Beatles?
I rest my case about you knowing nothing about music
Learn to read. I never said they were examples of the best of the
Beatles. I merely used them as examples of Beatles songs that were
better than anything they did as solo artists. If you want examples of
the 'best of the Beatles' here's some:

'A Day in the Life'

'She's leaving home'

'Norwegian wood'

'Eleanor Rigby'
Fred
2009-06-27 21:17:35 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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'.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
Help and Hard Days Night are your examples of the best of the Beatles?

I rest my case about you knowing nothing about music

They were fantastic albums. As were Rubber soul, Revolver, with the Beatles,
etc.
victor
2009-06-27 22:55:18 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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'.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
Help and Hard Days Night are your examples of the best of the Beatles?
I rest my case about you knowing nothing about music
They were fantastic albums. As were Rubber soul, Revolver, with the Beatles,
etc.
Famous in their time, but not much different to thousands of other songs
and singers.
And you would think the compination of Jaclson and McCartney would
produce a superlative result.
Not !
A _L_ P
2009-06-27 23:04:15 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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
on this by Astaire himself:
"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.

A L P
bubba ray
2009-06-28 00:31:57 UTC
Permalink
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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
mawkishness.

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.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
victor
2009-06-28 03:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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
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
mawkishness.
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.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
The Beatles didn't create anything new, they would be the first to admit
what they used from Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis Lonnie
Donegan etc. Elvis wasn't even a song writer.
Jackson had the advantage of a new generation of session players who
took the Berry Gordy Corporation Motown he grew up with and added the LA
melting pot, guys that played with George Benson and Boz Scaggs and
Steely Dan, Brothers Johnson, Earth Wind and Fire. and stuck in some
bossa and latin syncopation and fusion.
Guys like Rod Temperton a white guy from Cleethorpes wrote the huge
hooks in the big hits. He was from Heatwave, Boogie Nights, remember
them ? Its disposable throwaway pop off the production line like Hot
Chocolate and Bony M.
Jackson wrote one son on Off the Wall and 3 1/2 on Thriller and they
were mostly slap bass riffs.
Who knows why stuff takes off like this ? But you are right, its not art.
bubba ray
2009-06-28 07:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by victor
Post by bubba ray
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
songs passion.
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
parents.
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
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
mawkishness.
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.
Post by A _L_ P
A L P
The Beatles didn't create anything new, they would be the first to admit
what they used from Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis Lonnie
Donegan etc. Elvis wasn't even a song writer.
The Beatles owed a big debt to guys like Buddy Holly, Little Richard
etc. But you'd be hard pressed to find a band that was 100% original.
What the Beatles did was manage to fuse all their influences together
to create a new original sound. Other bands I would put in the
'original sound' category would be The Velvet Underground, The New
York Dolls (although you could argue that they were a mutated version
of the Rolling Stones), The Ramones, Nirvana and Sonic Youth.
Post by victor
Jackson had the advantage of a new generation of session players who
took the Berry Gordy Corporation Motown he grew up with and added the LA
melting pot, guys that played with George Benson and Boz Scaggs and
Steely Dan,  Brothers Johnson, Earth Wind and Fire. and stuck in some
bossa and latin syncopation and fusion.
Guys like Rod Temperton a white guy from Cleethorpes wrote the huge
hooks in the big hits. He was from Heatwave, Boogie Nights, remember
Sure do.
Post by victor
them ? Its disposable throwaway pop off the production line like Hot
Chocolate and Bony M.
Jackson wrote one son on Off the Wall and  3 1/2 on Thriller and they
were mostly slap bass riffs.
Who knows why stuff takes off like this ? But you are right, its not art.
The hook's the money maker.
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 10:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love


Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were tucked
up in bed... with him?

E. Scrooge
Bobs
2009-06-27 10:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were
tucked up in bed... with him?
E. Scrooge
Turn it up, McDuck. He was found not guilty, let it go.
--
What do Michael Jackson and Santa Claus have in common?

They both leave little boys' rooms with an empty sack
Greg
2009-06-27 10:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were
tucked up in bed... with him?
E. Scrooge
Turn it up, McDuck. He was found not guilty, let it go.
So was Bain and OJ

Greg
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 10:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were
tucked up in bed... with him?
E. Scrooge
Turn it up, McDuck. He was found not guilty, let it go.
The 50 million he gave to a family to drop a lawsuit against him was hardly
just a bit of good will being spread at Christmas.

You forget that Bain was found not guilty as well, though in his case it was
beyond any doubt.

E. Scrooge
Bobs
2009-06-27 11:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by E. Scrooge
Post by Bobs
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the
time, > such
Post by bubba ray
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one
else
Post by bubba ray
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were
tucked up in bed... with him?
E. Scrooge
Turn it up, McDuck. He was found not guilty, let it go.
The 50 million he gave to a family to drop a lawsuit against him was
hardly just a bit of good will being spread at Christmas.
It was 15 million, McDuck. Not sure how that makes him guilty though? No
reasonable parent would accept money if their kid really was abused.
Would you?
Post by E. Scrooge
You forget that Bain was found not guilty as well, though in his case it
was beyond any doubt.
Last I looked, Jacksons jury didn't attend an after-party in the accused
honour.
Post by E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
--
What do Michael Jackson and Santa Claus have in common?

They both leave little boys' rooms with an empty sack
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 22:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
Post by E. Scrooge
Post by Bobs
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the
time, > such
Post by bubba ray
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one
else
Post by bubba ray
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were
tucked up in bed... with him?
E. Scrooge
Turn it up, McDuck. He was found not guilty, let it go.
The 50 million he gave to a family to drop a lawsuit against him was
hardly just a bit of good will being spread at Christmas.
It was 15 million, McDuck. Not sure how that makes him guilty though? No
reasonable parent would accept money if their kid really was abused. Would
you?
Post by E. Scrooge
You forget that Bain was found not guilty as well, though in his case it
was beyond any doubt.
Last I looked, Jacksons jury didn't attend an after-party in the accused
honour.
Janet Jackson and I don't remember even seeing you at the celebration party.
LOL

E. Scrooge
ChristianKnight
2009-06-27 11:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChristianKnight
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
Post by bubba ray
His music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
He was more that just music. Also a masterful live performer of the type
sadly lacking in many of todays pop stars. Which is why as insane as he
was, people had a respect for his abilities.
Post by bubba ray
John Lennon as part of the Beatles, and Elvis were inventive and
creative. Elvis put together black music with country like no one else
before (he was a white guy doing black music way before Eminem), and
the Beatles with their inventive chord changes created a new kind of
pop music.
True.
Post by bubba ray
No comparison really.
Can't agree.
-ws
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.
Elvis was very good using his dance with his voice to express his
songs passion.
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
parents.
Christ's love
Can you even guess which one liked to make sure that little kids were tucked
up in bed...   with him?
E. Scrooge- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That was a little inappropriate and not good time to remember
espeacially because no sex was ever proven and comforting a crying
child is not a crime.
Chriust's love
A _L_ P
2009-06-27 22:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChristianKnight
That was a little inappropriate and not good time to remember
espeacially because no sex was ever proven and comforting a crying
child is not a crime.
Chriust's love
Stone the crows, CK, you must be on great meds now. This is the second
excellent post I've read from you in 2 days!

Normally I put you straight into my kill-file whenever it's fallen over
due to a change of other settings. I've just finished re-making the
killfile after a change due to getting wireless internet *WAY-HEY and
YAY!* and now had to un-tick your nick. Keep on keeping well, your
thinking is good when your head's healthy :-)

A L P
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 04:35:17 UTC
Permalink
In message
John Lennon['s] song imagine seems like a
wine from a little boy not wanting to go to church with his rich
parents.
Spoken like a true religionist trying to pooh-pooh the ultimate humanist
anthem.

Your afterlife had better be worth it, given how much fun you're not having
here.
ChristianKnight
2009-06-29 07:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
In message
John Lennon['s] song imagine seems like a
wine from a little boy not wanting to go to church with his rich
parents.
Spoken like a true religionist trying to pooh-pooh the ultimate humanist
anthem.
Your afterlife had better be worth it, given how much fun you're not having
here.
What do you suggest ? I join the foreign leigon.
Go on Lawerence what do I have to do to have fun?
Christ's love
Mister Scooter
2009-06-27 12:56:53 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:21:09 +1200, Re: Michael Jackson vs John Lennon vs
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre.
I guess that means there's hope for you yet.
Post by bubba ray
He was talented but he was neither inventive or creative.
Huh? It was infact his inventive and creative work in the early 80's that
made his career take off after being just another child star.
Post by bubba ray
Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was doing the same thing years
before and a hundred times better.
Although legendary, he did not transcend as many boundaries as Whacko did.
James Brown never changed his appearance to that of a white man, he was far to
threatening to white people, he represented the black man who was going to take
away their daughters and rape them under the influence of his music, which was
why it wasn't heard b the majority of white people, it was only really heard on
black stations and on black records.
Jackson, who was deeply ashamed of being a black man, had his nose changed, his
hair straightened and his lips reduced to look more like a non threatening white
man.


--
Watch this space.
Kerry
2009-06-27 12:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative.  Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?

You know nothing of the evolution of music, or Michael Jackson for
that matter
Greg
2009-06-27 12:40:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Kerry
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative.  Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
Quincy Jones was inventive and creative
victor
2009-06-27 23:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Kerry
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
Quincy Jones was inventive and creative
What did he invent ?
Greg
2009-06-28 02:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by victor
Post by Greg
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Kerry
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
Quincy Jones was inventive and creative
What did he invent ?
The Michael Jackson that everyone is having bromance with
victor
2009-06-28 02:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Post by victor
Post by Greg
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Kerry
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
Quincy Jones was inventive and creative
What did he invent ?
The Michael Jackson that everyone is having bromance with
Don't think so, he was just a producer.
bubba ray
2009-06-27 13:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative.  Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
You know nothing of the evolution of music, or Michael Jackson for
that matter
What did Michael Jackson create that was inventive?
victor
2009-06-27 22:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
You know nothing of the evolution of music, or Michael Jackson for
that matter
What did Michael Jackson create that was inventive?
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/06/25/michael-jacksons-pat.html
A _L_ P
2009-06-27 23:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Michael Jackson was mediocre. He was talented but he was neither
inventive or creative. Sure, he could dance, but James Brown was
doing the same thing years before and a hundred times better. His
music was pure pop and just reflected the pop music of the time, such
as disco (thank god he never tried doing punk).
Jackson wasnt inventive and creative?
You know nothing of the evolution of music, or Michael Jackson for
that matter
What did Michael Jackson create that was inventive?
Making "Where the fuck did I put my other glove?" into a fashion statement.

A L P
Gordon
2009-06-27 09:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
Your list is far too short. For many great, iconic, influental, drug users
are now dead.
Keith
2009-06-27 11:00:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@clear.net.nz
says...
Post by Gordon
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
Your list is far too short. For many great, iconic, influental, drug users
are now dead.
Charlie Parker
Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison
Bobs
2009-06-27 09:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
John LEnnon was a fucking hippy that was heading down the same road as
that dickhead Cat Stevens or whatever the fuck that clown calls himself
now. His music sucked arse. Hate the Beatles - they were shit anyway.
Just played on their sex appeal to yanks who liked pommy accents. Listen
to their guitar work...sloppy nasty crap.

Elvis was impressive - not my type of music but his influence can't be
denied. Brought black music to the masses, and did it even better than
the blacks. Died on the shitter like a man should.

Michael Jackson - hard to place. Awesome dancer, very popular and moved
a shit load of records. Had an interesting mix of funk and pop music,
even my 70 year old parents found some of his sounds catchy. Say what
you like, but some of his music wasn't bad.

I'd give it to Elvis though. Jackson is certainly right up there.
--
What do Michael Jackson and Santa Claus have in common?

They both leave little boys' rooms with an empty sack
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 10:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
John LEnnon was a fucking hippy that was heading down the same road as
that dickhead Cat Stevens or whatever the fuck that clown calls himself
now. His music sucked arse. Hate the Beatles - they were shit anyway. Just
played on their sex appeal to yanks who liked pommy accents. Listen to
their guitar work...sloppy nasty crap.
Elvis was impressive - not my type of music but his influence can't be
denied. Brought black music to the masses, and did it even better than the
blacks. Died on the shitter like a man should.
Michael Jackson - hard to place. Awesome dancer, very popular and moved a
shit load of records. Had an interesting mix of funk and pop music, even
my 70 year old parents found some of his sounds catchy. Say what you like,
but some of his music wasn't bad.
I'd give it to Elvis though. Jackson is certainly right up there.
The insane gloved one wasn't just broke, wacko owed millions and spent most
of his later years in pain.
He owed that much money that he danced round with his hand on his crown
jewels to try to prevent them from being taken, and you called that awesome
protecting his nuts like the thousands of squirrels do.

E. Scrooge
Jack Spratt
2009-06-27 10:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobs
Elvis was impressive
<snip>
Post by Bobs
Died on the shitter like a man should.
LOL!
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 10:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Every other top singer was worth millions while alive. Jackson on the other
hand owed millions, and now his so called fans put the boot in by spending
millions on his records and videos now that he's dead and no longer needing
the millions to pay back what he owes.

You can bet that Jackson helped more doctors to get rich from him than Elvis
ever did.

Did Jackson simply die or was he helped along by people knowing he would
bring in many more millions dead than he ever would alive?

E. Scrooge
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 04:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by E. Scrooge
Did Jackson simply die or was he helped along by people knowing he would
bring in many more millions dead than he ever would alive?
And so the conspiratizationalists emerge from the ligneous constructions...
Kerry
2009-06-27 12:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Lennon wasnt an addict and he didnt die of a drug overdose
E. Scrooge
2009-06-27 22:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Lennon wasnt an addict and he didnt die of a drug overdose


He died after taking a shot or 2 of lead.

E. Scrooge
Mister Scooter
2009-06-27 12:49:41 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:29:52 +1200, Michael Jackson vs John Lennon vs Elvis
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
John Lennon without a doubt.
Lennon was clean when he died unlike Jackson and his father in law.

--
Watch this space.
Geopelia
2009-06-27 22:01:54 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't know about their music, but Elvis did his Army service, so he
gets my vote.
Jack Spratt
2009-06-28 04:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geopelia
I wouldn't know about their music, but Elvis did his Army service, so he
gets my vote.
There is a humorous image, Jacko in the Army.
Eeeee Heeeeee Sir!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2009-06-29 04:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geopelia
I wouldn't know about their music, but Elvis did his Army service, so he
gets my vote.
Yeah, he never promulgated subversive propaganda like "Give Peace A Chance".
Geopelia
2009-06-29 05:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Geopelia
I wouldn't know about their music, but Elvis did his Army service, so he
gets my vote.
Yeah, he never promulgated subversive propaganda like "Give Peace A Chance".
His film "Wooden Heart" did a lot to help people see that Germans are really
people much like the rest of us, after all the wartime propaganda.
greybeard
2009-06-27 22:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
Hmmm..... Jim Morrison?

greybeard
galleria
2009-06-27 22:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
I don't think they can be compared
because Michael is a singer AND dancer
he understood how and what type of music and rythms move the body
undoubtedly he is one of the best creators of dance music
he knew how a dancer feels the music and what the sensations are
you too could dance like this.....if you could FEEL the music


pow ! bam !
Jack Spratt
2009-06-28 04:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by galleria
Post by Will Spencer
All great, all iconic, all influential, all drug addicts, all dead.
But who was the greatest?
-ws
I don't think they can be compared
because Michael is a singer AND dancer
he understood how and what type of music and rythms move the body
undoubtedly he is one of the best creators of dance music
he knew how a dancer feels the music and what the sensations are
you too could dance like this.....if you could FEEL the music
http://youtu.be/otOf2vVeG5g
pow ! bam !
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none the
less.
A _L_ P
2009-06-28 04:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.

A L P
galleria
2009-06-28 21:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful thing

victor
2009-06-28 21:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful thing
http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
On the shoulders of Giants

Fred Astaire, Bill Bailey, Buck and Bubbles, Cab Calloway, Clark
Brothers, Sammy Davis Jr., Daniel L. Haynes, Rubberneck Holmes,
Patterson and Jackson, Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Three Chefs (only
the feet), Tip Tap and Toe (feat. Ray Winfield), Earl Snakehips Tucker



Nothing wrong with distilling the essence of others and having Jeffrey
Daniels as a teacher.

Isn't Youtube great for this stuff ?
galleria
2009-06-28 23:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by victor
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful thing
http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
On the shoulders of Giants
Fred Astaire, Bill Bailey, Buck and Bubbles, Cab Calloway, Clark
Brothers, Sammy Davis Jr., Daniel L. Haynes, Rubberneck Holmes,
Patterson and Jackson, Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Three Chefs (only
the feet), Tip Tap and Toe (feat. Ray Winfield), Earl Snakehips http://youtu.be/kH0FeiL
Nothing wrong with distilling the essence of others and having Jeffrey
Daniels as a teacher.
Isn't Youtube great for this stuff ?
Yeah awesome aye and unless you watch the old black and whites
not many people have even heard of the oldtime soft shoe shufflers
he certainly brought it blazing into the new millenium

did you see this breakdance?


luv dem old black'n'whites
bubba ray
2009-06-28 23:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
galleria
2009-06-28 23:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion

I suppose you've already seen this
but it's rather nice all the same

bubba ray
2009-06-29 02:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by galleria
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion
Except to say that he didn't write his own music is not an opinion,
it's fact. To say he was a performer is a fact. To say he was one of
the greatest performers of all time is, well, an opinion.
Post by galleria
I suppose you've already seen this
but it's rather nice all the http://youtu.be/OK25cfzdTTg
Jack Spratt
2009-06-29 03:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by galleria
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his
crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a
clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph
sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion
Except to say that he didn't write his own music is not an opinion,
it's fact. To say he was a performer is a fact. To say he was one of
the greatest performers of all time is, well, an opinion.

===========

Some of these moves look familiar
http://youtu.be/fxZcLWAmdco
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion
Except to say that he didn't write his own music is not an opinion,
it's fact.
No its a lie
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion
Except to say that he didn't write his own music is not an opinion,
it's fact.
No its a lie
Ok, if you want to be completely anal about it he wrote some of his
own music. But he wasn't a songwriter in the sense that Lennon/
McCartney were.

Sheesh, you must have been in love with him to be this defensive.
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.-
Oh I am so sorry, your opinion has absolutely no creedence in my
opinion
Except to say that he didn't write his own music is not an opinion,
it's fact.
No its a lie
Ok, if you want to be completely anal about it he wrote some of his
own music. But he wasn't a songwriter in the sense that Lennon/
McCartney were.
In what sense was he not a songwriter?

I point you too ample evidence he wrote many successful songs above
victor
2009-06-29 01:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off. When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it. He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso. Elvis was sex on a stick. Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
Its well known that Motown performers were groomed and mentored from an
early age, that the music came from expert songwriters arrangers and
producers, and the dancing came from choreographers like Cosey and
Casper at Soul Train. Its a formula. The one that worked well in 1983.
The one that the same choreographers danced with him over the next ten
years or so until he burnt out on excess and weirdness and hangers on
leeching off him
Kerry
2009-06-29 10:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music. He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
bubba ray
2009-06-29 11:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.

For 'Off The Wall' he wrote 2 out of 10 songs and collaborated on 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Wall_(album)

For 'Thriller' he wrote 4 out of 9 songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(album)

For 'Bad' he wrote 8 out of the 10 songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(album)

So for his three top albums only one he wrote the majority of songs
for.
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
For 'Off The Wall' he wrote 2 out of 10 songs and collaborated on 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Wall_(album)
For 'Thriller' he wrote 4 out of 9 songshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(album)
For 'Bad' he wrote 8 out of the 10 songshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(album)
So for his three top albums only one he wrote the majority of songs
for.
And you said he didnt write or produce any
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
Nothing defensive about correcting falsehood
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
Nothing defensive about correcting falsehood
It is when you use phrases like 'It was so' and insults like
'ignorant' and 'knows nothing about music'. You know you can correct
falsehoods without putting the other person down.
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
Nothing defensive about correcting falsehood
It is when you use phrases like 'It was so' and insults like
'ignorant' and 'knows nothing about music'. You know you can correct
falsehoods without putting the other person down.
Oooh sensitive. Hurt feelings?

I see a moron I call it a moron. You would rather I was dishonest?
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
Nothing defensive about correcting falsehood
It is when you use phrases like 'It was so' and insults like
'ignorant' and 'knows nothing about music'. You know you can correct
falsehoods without putting the other person down.
Oooh sensitive.  Hurt feelings?
Hell no. I find you amusing.
I see a moron I call it a moron.  You would rather I was dishonest?
When I see a moron I don't feel the need to announce the fact.

Will Spencer
2009-06-29 12:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
It was so his music.  He wrost the vast majority of his own stuff and
collabarated on most of the rest
Oooh, defensive.
For 'Off The Wall' he wrote 2 out of 10 songs and collaborated on 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_Wall_(album)
For 'Thriller' he wrote 4 out of 9 songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(album)
For 'Bad' he wrote 8 out of the 10 songs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(album)
So for his three top albums only one he wrote the majority of songs
for.
Well there you go, he wrote his own songs and collaborated on others.
Further, most of his biggest hits were the ones he wrote himself.

-ws
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
Ignorance needs to be corrected, even though it is unlikely the
ignorant will receive...

Off the Wall 1979 Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
3 of the songs written by Jackson

Thriller 1982 Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
7 singles, all reached top 10, 8 Grammy awards
4 of those written and composed by Jackson

Bad 1997 Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
Jackson wrote and composed 9 of the 11 tracks, co wrote another

Dangerous 1991 Produced by Michael Jackson Michael Jackson, Teddy
Riley and Bill Bottrell
14 tracks, 9 singles
12 songs written by Jackson

'History 1995
Produced by Jackson and others
5 singles
30 tracks 16 by Jackson, 7 cowritten by Jackson and collaborators

Invincible 2001 Producers Michael Jackson, Rodney Jerkins, Teddy
Riley, Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds, R. Kelly, Dr. Freeze
16 tracks, 3 singles
Jackson wrote 2 and cowrote 13
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
Ignorance needs to be corrected, even though it is unlikely the
ignorant will receive...
You must have been a real MJ fan otherwise you wouldn't feel the need
to be so insulting.
Post by Kerry
Off the Wall 1979  Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
3 of the songs written by Jackson
Thriller 1982 Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
7 singles, all reached top 10, 8 Grammy awards
4 of those written and composed by Jackson
Bad 1997 Produced by Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones
Jackson wrote and composed 9 of the 11 tracks, co wrote another
Dangerous 1991 Produced by Michael Jackson Michael Jackson, Teddy
Riley and Bill Bottrell
14 tracks, 9 singles
12 songs written by Jackson
'History 1995
Produced by Jackson and others
5 singles
30 tracks 16 by Jackson, 7 cowritten by Jackson and collaborators
Invincible 2001 Producers Michael Jackson, Rodney Jerkins, Teddy
Riley, Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds, R. Kelly, Dr. Freeze
16 tracks, 3 singles
Jackson wrote 2 and cowrote 13
Kerry
2009-06-29 12:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
Ignorance needs to be corrected, even though it is unlikely the
ignorant will receive...
You must have been a real MJ fan otherwise you wouldn't feel the need
to be so insulting.
Ahh I realise what you meant to say was

"I am sorry I was ignorant and wrong, and blowing off about something
I knew nothing about"

Thats ok, you know better now
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
Post by Kerry
Post by bubba ray
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
Ignorance needs to be corrected, even though it is unlikely the
ignorant will receive...
You must have been a real MJ fan otherwise you wouldn't feel the need
to be so insulting.
Ahh I realise what you meant to say was
"I am sorry I was ignorant and wrong, and blowing off about something
I knew nothing about"
Thats ok, you know better now
Nope, I pretty much meant what I wrote. And for the record I also
stand by my previous statements about MJ. Taken as a whole, it wasn't
his music but that of Michael Jackson, Inc.
Will Spencer
2009-06-29 12:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
For starters, he wrote most of the best songs on his Thriller album, and
almost every song on his Bad album. By that I mean lyrics and music.

You clearly don't know shit about anything, you ignorant dung eater.

-ws
bubba ray
2009-06-29 12:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Spencer
Post by bubba ray
Post by galleria
Post by A _L_ P
Post by Jack Spratt
Wasn't Elvis the Pelvis considered a mover too?
Maybe a little less crotch grabbing and hair igniting but a mover none
the less.
When Elvis moved his pelvis you KNEW he knew what a pelvis is about, and
it's not just to hang legs off.  When Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch
it was like either "I weed in my panties, Mama" or those beauty contest
kiddies doing bump and grind routines that they have been taught by
adults who do know what it's about and think it's cute when small
children dressed as hookers do it.  He didn't convey that he had a clue
what he was grabbing except it was close to where his legs joined his
torso.  Elvis was sex on a stick.  Jackson was sex on a holograph sticker.
A L P
doesn't change the fact that Michael Jackson created some of the best
dance music of all time and understood the interaction between music
and movement
how we meld and merge with rythms
he had almost like a form of synesthaesia the feeling of music
a beautiful http://youtu.be/PvYygjcMDdQ
But it wasn't his music, it was music produced by Michael Jackson,
Inc. He was a manufactured popstar.
For starters, he wrote most of the best songs on his Thriller album, and
almost every song on his Bad album. By that I mean lyrics and music.
You clearly don't know shit about anything, you ignorant dung eater.
-ws
Another MJ fanatic.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...