Best Pop Albums - Music Diaries - Forums : Best Ever Albums

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

Michael Jackson definitely deserves to be here imo. He's the King of Pop.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

raadfactoryxny wrote:

Michael Jackson definitely deserves to be here imo. He's the King of Pop.

In terms of musical expression -- why?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

TimeLion

AfterHours wrote:

In terms of musical expression -- why?

It is funny how we recalibrate what is expressive based on our impression of what is normal. When it first came out, Michael Jackson’s music must have seemed very expressive, but decades of imitators have given such “popular” styles of music a certain banality. That is, how can it being saying anything worth hearing if it is so universally understood and enjoyed? And yet, that is the whole point of pop music. Its mode of expression is more social and less idiosyncratic. People often say, of great pop music, that the first time they hear it, they feel like they’ve known it all their lives.

But for someone who has listened to vast quantities of music, like Scaruffi and presumably yourself, it is understandable that you would be in search of experiences that are more distinctive. I would only caution that popular artists, like Michael Jackson, are often more distinctive than they seem at first glance and that the decades of imitators are only partially succeeding in capturing the essence of what made them great.

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

TimeLion wrote:

It is funny how we recalibrate what is expressive based on our impression of what is normal. When it first came out, Michael Jackson’s music must have seemed very expressive, but decades of imitators have given such “popular” styles of music a certain banality. That is, how can it being saying anything worth hearing if it is so universally understood and enjoyed? And yet, that is the whole point of pop music. Its mode of expression is more social and less idiosyncratic. People often say, of great pop music, that the first time they hear it, they feel like they’ve known it all their lives.

But for someone who has listened to vast quantities of music, like Scaruffi and presumably yourself, it is understandable that you would be in search of experiences that are more distinctive. I would only caution that popular artists, like Michael Jackson, are often more distinctive than they seem at first glance and that the decades of imitators are only partially succeeding in capturing the essence of what made them great.

I grew up listening to Michael Jackson at his absolute peak of popularity -- literally right there watching/listening as it happened -- so I am very aware of the myth and hype that surrounds him.

Are you mentioning "decades of imitators" because you feel like Ive listed them instead, in an unfair assessment -- and if so, who?

I would agree that the "point of pop music" youve mentioned is often the "point" of heavily mass marketed pop music, not necessarily of all pop music with more creative or personal or expressively distinct aims ( ... basically, to catch people's attention quickly enough and repetitiously so as to sell as much as possible).

Again: In terms of musical expression, why?

Moreover, please explain: "When it first came out, Michael Jackson’s music must have seemed very expressive" ... Again, why "very"? To someone unfamiliar with music history? What is so expressively extraordinary? ... Compared to? ... Stevie Wonder? Prince? Marvin Gaye? George Clinton/Parliament?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

AfterHours wrote:

In terms of musical expression -- why?

His musicality, and his music videos and his albums/songs were (matter of fact, still is) innovative, fresh and absolutely stunning. Both to lose yourself to, but also to study - with all the impressive and profound musical elements, along with the perfectly balanced melodies surrounding 95% of the songs. Making both songs that are topnotch on the dance floor, yet also motivational/political/social/darker/experimental/(you-name-it) cultural masterpieces, on the same album (Bad, Dangerous, HIStory) has never ever sounded so coherent or blissfully consistent. And did I mention that his passion on one song, overshines every artist on the music scene. Smile

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

raadfactoryxny wrote:

His musicality, and his music videos and his albums/songs were (matter of fact, still is) innovative, fresh and absolutely stunning. Both to lose yourself to, but also to study - with all the impressive and profound musical elements, along with the perfectly balanced melodies surrounding 95% of the songs. Making both songs that are topnotch on the dance floor, yet also motivational/political/social/darker/experimental/(you-name-it) cultural masterpieces, on the same album (Bad, Dangerous, HIStory) has never ever sounded so coherent or blissfully consistent. And did I mention that his passion on one song, overshines every artist on the music scene. Smile

Its cool that you love him so much. While I dig certain songs, I hope you are okay with my very different opinion (which I am assuming you were interested in and prepared for due to your comments on this page)

I would agree he could be clever with his musicality (Smooth Criminal, Billie Jean...) and was an above average melodist. But its hard not to draw the conclusion that his conviction was mostly superficial (more and more as his career developed). He almost never sounds like he is reaching some greater passion or invigoration, or as if a real person "feeling" something (relative to any great R & B/Soul singer). I think you might be surprised if you were to listen to many artists that were so much more innovative and sang with much more expression and soul (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Lauryn Hill, Laura Nyro, Curtis Mayfield, Abbey Lincoln, Fontella Bass, James Brown, Otis Redding ... etc). Michael Jackson was basically a sterilization of such singers, toned down and superficial. Its hard to think of a great "soul" or R and B singer with less "soul" and more artifice than Michael Jackson. He usually sounds disassociated from his vocal displays and like he is using them (rather than being them) at a distance to deliver an act/novelty -- a persona or theatric or gesture (rather than living them or embodying them). Quincy Jones' production/engineering was pretty cool and Thriller was probably his peak. MJs MO works for him better on Thriller because it is so thoroughly built around this concept musically -- the whole enterprise being very high class artifice carried also by his best set of songs and its beats and instrumentation immerse one inside this fabian world/personality crises which can be compelling and infectious.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

AfterHours wrote:

Its cool that you love him so much. While I dig certain songs, I hope you are okay with my very different opinion (which I am assuming you were interested in and prepared for due to your comments on this page)

I would agree he could be clever with his musicality (Smooth Criminal, Billie Jean...) and was an above average melodist. But its hard not to draw the conclusion that his conviction was mostly superficial (more and more as his career developed). He almost never sounds like he is reaching some greater passion or invigoration, or as if a real person "feeling" something (relative to any great R & B/Soul singer). I think you might be surprised if you were to listen to many artists that were so much more innovative and sang with much more expression and soul (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Lauryn Hill, Laura Nyro, Curtis Mayfield, Abbey Lincoln, Fontella Bass, James Brown, Otis Redding ... etc). Michael Jackson was basically a sterilization of such singers, toned down and superficial. Its hard to think of a great "soul" or R and B singer with less "soul" and more artifice than Michael Jackson. He usually sounds disassociated from his vocal displays and like he is using them (rather than being them) at a distance to deliver an act/novelty -- a persona or theatric or gesture (rather than living them or embodying them). Quincy Jones' production/engineering was pretty cool and Thriller was probably his peak. MJs MO works for him better on Thriller because it is so thoroughly built around this concept musically -- the whole enterprise being very high class artifice carried also by his best set of songs and its beats and instrumentation immerse one inside this fabian world/personality crises which can be compelling and infectious.

of course I'm okay with a very different opinion, as long as that argument is respectful, and fun to discuss...

"an above average melodist." imo much more than that of average.

"But its hard not to draw the conclusion that his conviction was mostly superficial (more and more as his career developed)." I can see where you're coming from, but I just feel it like its the realest thing ever. More so, I actually think he became deeper as a songwriter and pop-poet in the 90s.

"He almost never sounds like he is reaching some greater passion or invigoration, or as if a real person "feeling" something (relative to any great R & B/Soul singer)." That I can absolutely not disagree with more. But what exactly do you mean by "real person"? Vocally, he is one of the few (if not the only) who could truly master a falsetto between artsy and genuinely human. He also rested in himself more as time went by, to be more political in songwriting in the 90s (like I stated previously). And his passion for the music, the videos, and the world is general was not only colossal (on tape alone - 'cause I never saw him live or in person), but also engrossing, at a level, that I definitively feel it as his music comes from my own heart and soul. No other artist (of any genre) have managed to that (some have come close like Eminem, Bob Dylan, Jeff Mangum (Neutral Milk Hotel), D'Angelo etc).
I mostly only speak for myself, 'cause I cannot claim some universal truth - that's why my responses are very Pathos-driven. And speaking with my emotions on topic of MJ, he showcases that it's (at least for me) evident that he can touch the listener on a very emotionally compelling level. Which requires some sort of talent.
Sorry for the cringe Very Happy

.

"I think you might be surprised if you were to listen to many artists that were so much more innovative and sang with much more expression and soul (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Lauryn Hill, Laura Nyro, Curtis Mayfield, Abbey Lincoln, Fontella Bass, James Brown, Otis Redding ... etc)." Before I take on my response, I wanna thank u for not mentioning Prince. I don't think he belongs in the masterclass (he was very talented musically, but I never ever liked him as an artist, and that's coming from one who owns almost his entire discography).
Alot of the singers you named are mostly soul-singers, and MJ is (deservedly) The King of Pop Smile

.
Mr. Gaye is delightful as a vocalist, but in comparison with Jackson, he can at times be (and I hate to say it) one-dimensional. I adore him, I love his crowd-jewel record What's Going On (hell, it's on my top 100, at 87th).
Who doesn't like Stevie Wonder? Me. Nah, I'm joking, I love him just as much as Marvin. But after Songs In The Key of Life, his variety went a little south, unlike Michael imo.
I played The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill so much that the CD got broken, when I was little. But - again - in comparison with freaking Jackson, she stands as just another solid R&B singer. I cannot imagine her as having been more innovative with TMoLH than him on the 5 albums, that came before hers. She lacks significance in her delivery. Even Usher has more charm and power in his performances on 8701 and Confessions individually, than ms. Hill on her one album. Timberlake as well, on his two 20/20 Experience LPs. And both male singers look up to Michael still.
I'm gonna check out two Mayfield albums I've never heard, in June, so I'm looking forward to that. Maybe I'll get back here Very Happy

4 the same reason, it's been a long time since I heard a full James Brown album, I mostly remember him for making "I Got You (I Feel Good)", but as Michael being The King of Pop, I wouldn't mind calling JB The Godfather of Soul.
I don't have time for explaining my opinion for the others, but you got the point....

"He usually sounds disassociated from his vocal displays and like he is using them (rather than being them) at a distance to deliver an act/novelty -- a persona or theatric or gesture (rather than living them or embodying them)." The bangers of Dangerous prove otherwise imo. Wink

"Quincy Jones' production/engineering was pretty cool and Thriller was probably his peak. MJs MO works for him better on Thriller because it is so thoroughly built around this concept musically -- the whole enterprise being very high class artifice carried also by his best set of songs and its beats and instrumentation immerse one inside this fabian world/personality crises which can be compelling and infectious." I agree, although Thriller is now the MJ album I listen to the least. It's complicated.....

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

raadfactoryxny wrote:

"But its hard not to draw the conclusion that his conviction was mostly superficial (more and more as his career developed)." I can see where you're coming from, but I just feel it like its the realest thing ever. More so, I actually think he became deeper as a songwriter and pop-poet in the 90s.

What do you mean though? What is deep or "got deeper" about his music? Can you describe what he is expressing musically that exhibits this deepness/profundity? And "pop poet"?

raadfactoryxny wrote:

"He almost never sounds like he is reaching some greater passion or invigoration, or as if a real person "feeling" something (relative to any great R & B/Soul singer)." That I can absolutely not disagree with more. But what exactly do you mean by "real person"?

Progressively, he quite literally became an artificial person as his career wore on. Who knows what led to this in his life. But it appears that he tried very hard to become a different person than who he initially was, remain a child forever, and became a very feminine, child-like man. His music is replete with artifice and an emotional neutrality. All the instrumentation tends to sound processed. His voice too -- he sings and is talented but it rarely is the sound of a real personality with shape and dimension or like you're getting deeper insight into him or even into this artificial version of him. The songs are just "songs", proclaiming his "moves" and "persona", but hardly experiential or expressions of a significant experience or slice of life. It does not sound like is living anything he sings (generally speaking), or maybe more accurately would be to say that the emotions are met by a superficial grasp and emotional immaturity, a "show" with little "content".

Do you have any examples of songs you feel sound like someone really expressing a great emotional or experiential connection to what is being conveyed?

(Will respond to the rest...)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

raadfactoryxny wrote:

He also rested in himself more as time went by, to be more political in songwriting in the 90s (like I stated previously).

There isn't much music that is less "political" than his. Just because someone says something political in a song does not necessarily mean they are expressing this political concept or experience to any great degree that adds dimension or insight to or further illuminates the discussion or worldview. Countless artists before and since have said "something" political (or concern about the world, etc) in one or some of their songs. MJ's superficiality pales in comparison to even the compassionate plea, humanity and touching utopian visions of Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye's What's Going On -- let alone the upheaval, counter culture and soaring (or devastated) prophecies of change from artists like Jefferson Airplane or Bob Dylan (etc).

More later... (very busy, little time)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

raadfactoryxny wrote:

Vocally, he is one of the few (if not the only) who could truly master a falsetto between artsy and genuinely human.

What do you mean by "between artsy and genuinely human" in regards to his falsetto?

raadfactoryxny wrote:

And his passion for the music, the videos, and the world is general was not only colossal (on tape alone - 'cause I never saw him live or in person), but also engrossing, at a level, that I definitively feel it as his music comes from my own heart and soul. No other artist (of any genre) have managed to that (some have come close like Eminem, Bob Dylan, Jeff Mangum (Neutral Milk Hotel), D'Angelo etc).
I mostly only speak for myself, 'cause I cannot claim some universal truth - that's why my responses are very Pathos-driven. And speaking with my emotions on topic of MJ, he showcases that it's (at least for me) evident that he can touch the listener on a very emotionally compelling level. Which requires some sort of talent.
Sorry for the cringe Very Happy

.

While Im not going to argue with your emotional response to MJ's music, I do feel the notion that his music expresses a great amount or insight or impact of emotional content in a highly compelling way to be very dubious particularly when not viewed in a vacuum closed off from countless examples of more expressively potent and profound artists.

One would be hard pressed to take any one of his songs and describe what it is expressing emotionally/conceptually, and in doing so, coming up with much more than a superficial example of said emotional/conceptual content (without veering from what can be heard, from what is expressed in the music).

raadfactoryxny wrote:

"I think you might be surprised if you were to listen to many artists that were so much more innovative and sang with much more expression and soul (Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Lauryn Hill, Laura Nyro, Curtis Mayfield, Abbey Lincoln, Fontella Bass, James Brown, Otis Redding ... etc)." Before I take on my response, I wanna thank u for not mentioning Prince. I don't think he belongs in the masterclass (he was very talented musically, but I never ever liked him as an artist, and that's coming from one who owns almost his entire discography).

I dont consider Prince a particularly great vocalist either (though servicable and undoubtedly talented). Obviously a much better musician than Michael Jackson though.

I was mainly pointing out vocalists that show a soulful tendency and where you can feel a real, vivid and life-like personality with shape and dimension from their singing (contrary to Jackson).

raadfactoryxny wrote:

I played The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill so much that the CD got broken, when I was little. But - again - in comparison with freaking Jackson, she stands as just another solid R&B singer. I cannot imagine her as having been more innovative with TMoLH than him on the 5 albums, that came before hers. She lacks significance in her delivery. Even Usher has more charm and power in his performances on 8701 and Confessions individually, than ms. Hill on her one album. Timberlake as well, on his two 20/20 Experience LPs. And both male singers look up to Michael still.
I'm gonna check out two Mayfield albums I've never heard, in June, so I'm looking forward to that. Maybe I'll get back here Very Happy

4 the same reason, it's been a long time since I heard a full James Brown album, I mostly remember him for making "I Got You (I Feel Good)", but as Michael being The King of Pop, I wouldn't mind calling JB The Godfather of Soul.
I don't have time for explaining my opinion for the others, but you got the point....

Re: Lauryn Hill ... when you say "she lacks significance in her delivery" what are you referring to? What does "significance" mean to you here?

raadfactoryxny wrote:

"He usually sounds disassociated from his vocal displays and like he is using them (rather than being them) at a distance to deliver an act/novelty -- a persona or theatric or gesture (rather than living them or embodying them)." The bangers of Dangerous prove otherwise imo. Wink

How so?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings