With Michael Dead.............
Anonymous
Mine is over.
William Clark
Anonymous <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> How can we ever go on with our lives.
>
> Mine is over.
Don't worry - it wasn't much to begin with.
No loss.
The Hammer
> How can we ever go on with our lives.
>
> Mine is over.
I have a hard time feeling one bit sorry for him. He had it all. He
travelled the world, had more money than most of us will have in 1000
lifetimes. There are a lot of people out there who deserve our
sympathy. What about the veterans coming home with no limbs, I feel
sorry for them! What about police killed in the act of duty? What
about doctors and nurses ambushed and killed in foreign countries
trying to help the poor in ravaged nations. They are heros. They
did something that really mattered. Do they get the kind of news
coverage this freak is getting?
Just another typical story that shows that you can't buy happiness
with money. People love to live through celebrites. How sad. This
is all we will hear now for the next week. While true heros and
people worthy of our respect and admiration go unnoticed.
Howard Brazee
personality of the same name - the beer expert.
I miss that Michael Jackson, his show was good.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Dinosaur_Sr
> People put flowers at the Hollywood Star belonging to the radio
> personality of the same name - the beer expert.
>
>
> I miss that Michael Jackson, his show was good.
>
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison
I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
There was a time I watched him every night. What I don't get is the
wall to wall coverage of Jackson on news channels. He isn't that big a
deal. I suspect that if the cameras weren't there, no one elese would
be either. It's like Anna Nicole Smith and JFK Jr...wall to wall
coverage of people that really aren't that big a deal...but you can't
watch the news unless that's what you want to see.
I suppose I'll have to go to the golf channel till this Michale
jackson overcoverage is over.
KG
>
> I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
For all your ravings about "talent", you sure don't appreciate it.
Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
selling album ever for a reason.
Alan Murphy
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3228460a-9caa-47c1...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Dino, You've clearly not heard about the pact between
the media, Hollywood in particular, and show business
personalities. Toe the political line and we'll promote you
and give you a huge sendoff when you finally kick it. Do
otherwise and you're dead, sometimes literally. Eminem
comes to mind. (Bin Laden didn't blow up the Project,
it was you n....., tell the truth, nigger).
The London Times once carried a longish obituary of an
obscure Hollywood actress stating that her main claim to
fame was as the worst B movie star ever to make it onto
the silver screen. Says it all really.
KG
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
Sounds like you're talking about talentless Ed McMahon. Lay off him.
He was a nice guy.
Bobby Knight
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
>There was a time I watched him every night. What I don't get is the
>wall to wall coverage of Jackson on news channels. He isn't that big a
>deal. I suspect that if the cameras weren't there, no one elese would
>be either. It's like Anna Nicole Smith and JFK Jr...wall to wall
>coverage of people that really aren't that big a deal...but you can't
>watch the news unless that's what you want to see.
Only an idiot would compare Michael Jackson to Anna Nicole Smith, but
then look who wrote it. Smith had no talent, JFK Jr. had the name,
and McMahon was great as a foil for Carson. None of them are
comparable to Jackson.
MJ certainly wasn't my cup of tea, but I damned sure recognize the
amazing talent that he had. I didn't buy any of his records, CDs,
videos, or attend any appearances....and had to separate his life
into the personal and professional. The personal was repugnant to me,
but there's no denying him the fact that he was the biggest star on
the planet in the last 50 years, deservedly, and that's why the
wall-to-wall coverage.
I'd rather say that about Sinatra, Bennett or Streisand, but it just
ain't so.
BK
Dinosaur_Sr
We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson. He is no different as a
talent than the Jonas Bros. Current overhyped pop stars. Talent is not
the issue. They fit some aspect of pop culture and so they sell
records.
And I take nothing way from him here, but the overhype is ridiculous.
I saw a commentator talking about thousands of people gathering at the
coroners office, but the tight shot they presented had a clump of
maybe 50 people and some space around them that looked like there was
no one else there. I also say a tight shot of his sidewalk star with
nmaybe 10 or so things around it. You want to claim there are
thousands of people and supprt it with a vid, show me the thousands of
people in the vid.
John B.
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>
The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
Bobby Knight
No contest. They did one thing, he was multi-talented.
Frankly I didn't care for either.
BK
Annika1980
scarletfire77
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d75c4cd2-42be-4084...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good pop songwriters
Couldn't play well live. Eventually gave up playing live.
Became a studio band with professional musicians' support via the studio.
Ho Hum
MNMikeW
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote in message
news:_b71m.3$Xc...@newsfe14.iad...
never really saw what the big deal was about the Beatles either. Now KISS,
there was a band! ;-)
John B.
> "scarletfire77" <scarletfir...@heynow.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_b71m.3$Xc...@newsfe14.iad...
>
> > "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:d75c4cd2-42be-4084...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
> > a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > Good pop songwriters
> > Couldn't play well live. Eventually gave up playing live.
> > Became a studio band with professional musicians' support via the studio.
>
> > Ho Hum
>
> I liked MJ during the Jackson 5 years. Not so much during his solo years. I
> never really saw what the big deal was about the Beatles either. Now KISS,
> there was a band! ;-)
You're kidding, right?
Bobby Knight
I'm hoping that's what the ;-) meant.
BK
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
BS - you never heard them in the club environment. They were one of the
most underrated rock and roll bands in history. The reason they didn't
sound so good live was that the crappy amps of the time couldn't compete
with 40,000 screaming schoolgirls in Shea Stadium.
MNMikeW
You're kidding, right?
------------------------------------------------------
Behold the power of the smiley. Though back in my metal days I had most of
the KISS albums.
MNMikeW
"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:as2a455nll3mb6140...@4ax.com...
Haters! :-)
John B.
They did one thing? They wrote songs, they played instruments, they
sang. MJ sang and danced.
John B.
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The reason they quit playing live wasn't because they weren't good at
it. It was because they couldn't stand the pressure of touring.
Michael Jackson was a child molester who didn't have one tenth the
impact the Beatles had.
Bobby Knight
MNMikeW
Gene Simmons had more talent in his tounge than MJ and the Beatles combined!
:-)
Bobby Knight
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 12:36�pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:16:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>> >The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
>> >a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
>>
>> No contest. �They did one thing, he was multi-talented.
>>
>> Frankly I didn't care for either.
>>
>> BK
>
>They did one thing? They wrote songs, they played instruments, they
>sang. MJ sang and danced.
They were recording artists...and so was MJ. Both wrote and performed
songs. MJ also danced.
Although I wasn't a fan of either, MJ's music was far superior to the
triteness of most of the Beatles', mainly because he surrounded
himself with great arrangers like Quincy Jones, Marty Paich and Johnny
Mandel. It wasn't until the Beatles were involved with the yogi that
they did anything that was seriously musical.
bk
scarletfire77
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-DC7821....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Right I never heard them because they quit playing in '63.
So for the next 6 years they became a studio band with symphony support.
In fact they never even went into the studio *together*.
I didn't hear them live because they couldn't do it. Thats not my fault.
scarletfire77
~~~~~~~~~
They stopped touring because they couldn't play the songs on their own
albums.
John B.
> "Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gp4a45hq4vf5o8q15...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:21:15 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
OK, now I know you're kidding. :-)
Bobby Knight
Wrong. Read the number of takes that went into making a finished
recording project. All because they were just average musicians who
quickly hit it big on the pop charts. Paul and John became better
composers later.
I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
BK
R&B
> How can we ever go on with our lives.
>
> Mine is over.
I'm frankly not at all surprised by the cynical and often luke warm
response shown here. It's fairly typical of the
no-appreciation-for-art mentality that seems to permeate this room,
which is populated by a mostly older, mostly white, mostly conservative
crowd.
That said, for people who choose to give music heavy emphasis in their
lives -- and pop music in particular (by "pop," I mean popular, not
some specific genre of music) -- Michael Jackson was a one-of-a-kind
performer whose accomplishments are unrivaled.
He sold more records than any recording artist in history. His
"Thriller" album was #1 for 37 weeks, and remains to this day the
largest-selling album of all time. He had 18 #1 singles. His
"Victory" tour in 1984, a tour in which he could easily have been the
headline act (since "Thriller" was at the height of its popularity), he
chose instead to present himself as part of "the Jacksons," was a
breakthrough concert tour. The $50 ticket price was unheard of at the
time (you could get into most concerts for under $20 at the time), and
played to packed football stadiums around the country, and required
that you first be selected in a lottery JUST TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE
TICKETS! He was the first African-American artist played on MTV. By
breaking that barrier, he transformed popular music into an art form
that was, and still is, for the most part, color-blind. One need look
no further than this week's Billboard Hot 100 Chart to see his legacy.
Many of today's most popular recording artists are working off the
Michael Jackson blueprint. His "We Are the World" single broke new
ground as an all-star performance, and without that song and its "Aid
for Africa" relief effort, there never would have been Live Aid, Farm
Aid or any of the other "aid" concerts held around the world. If you
say you never danced to a Michael Jackson song, you're probably lying.
Maybe you weren't still dancing when "Billy Jean" or "Black and White"
were released, but I'll bet you slow danced with your wife or
girlfriend to the sound of "I'll Be There" or "Ben." If you didn't,
you missed out.
I had the distinct privilige of being the guest of the Sullivan family
(Billy Sullivan, former owner of the New England Patriots, who was the
money behind the 1984 "Victory" tour) at opening night of the Victory
Tour at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, where I sat in the 10th row.
After the show, I was one of a handful of radio people selected to be
escorted backstage to meet Michael and the Jacksons. He was
delightful, shy, quiet, and, well, totally exhausted and spent. He
left it all on stage. I've often said about performers -- whether
they're singers, actors, disc jockeys, golfers, athletes in other
sports, or whatever -- the measure of the performer's passion can be
seen in how much they give themselves over to the performance. Few
performers in my lifetime gave more of themselves over to their
performances than did Michael Jackson. He was a perfectionist.
A few nights after the tour's opening night in Kansas City, once I was
back home in Dallas, I attended the Victory Tour show once again, this
time at Texas Stadium, where Eddie Van Halen (who was in town with his
band for a concert a few nights later at Texas Stadium) came out and
performed on "Beat It" with the Jacksons, just as he'd done on the
record. It blew a hole in the roof. (Okay, the hole was already
there. But it was awesome!)
I also attended the Van Halen concert a few nights later at Texas Stadium.
I must say that while I was a huge Van Halen fan at the time, the radio
station I was programming in Dallas didn't play Michael Jackson's
music. We were a Rock/Top-40 hybrid, and his music was a little too
"pop" for our audience. But his "Thriller" album forced our hand, just
as it forced the hand of MTV, who, by previously ignoring Jackson's
music, put themselves (as we had put ourselves) in a position of not
playing the most popular music of the day, thereby rendering themselves
(as we unwittingly rendered ourselves) irrelevant as carriers of
popular music. Like MTV, we relented, and began playing MJ's music. I
used to have a platinum album of "Thriller" on my wall. I now wish I'd
kept it.
Having seen both the Jacksons and Van Halen perform live within a few
days of each other, both in the same venue, I can tell you that the
Jacksons' "Victory" show BLEW AWAY Van Halen at a time when Van Halen
was at its peak of popularity. No contest. Not even close.
Of all the concerts I've seen in my life (and I've been to literally
hundreds of them), none shone brighter than the Jacksons' "Victory"
Tour show. Michael's showmanship, his vocal mastery, his moves, his
energy and the vibe that everyone left with, was simply unmatched.
Simply put, it was the best concert I've ever attended -- by a mile.
Was MJ a role model? Well, uh, no. Probably not. Few musicians who
make popular music are. But while cynics like to point to his battles
with the law in later years, it bears mentioning that he was ACQUITTED
on all criminal charges despite the state's best efforts to pull out
all the stops in hopes of nailing him. Still, as doubts lingered about
what really happened, no one here really knows the truth. They only
have suspicions. Coming from cynics, it's not at all surprising that
they assume the worst. That's what cynics do.
Bottom line: As a creative talent, performer, songwriter, singer,
dancer and entertainer, Michael Jackson stands head and shoulders above
all others in my lifetime. Strictly speaking, I'm probably a bigger
fan of The Beatles than I was of Michael Jackson. But as an industry
insider who admires excellence in performance and appreciates how art
stands the test of time, it's hard to argue that Michael Jackson wasn't
in a class by himself. The Beatles couldn't dance, let alone do so
while singing. Michael brought a level of showmanship to the pop music
world that had previously never been seen. To paraphrase the words of
Archie Bell and the Drells, "He could not only sing, but he could dance
just as good as he walks." In fact, he invented several dance moves
that no one had previously imagined. The first time he moonwalked on
stage before a live audience on the nationally-televised Motown 25th
Anniversary show, a gasp rippled through the audience. It was
electrifying! As Sheryl Crow, who was one of Jackson's backup singers
during the "Thriller" days, said on CNN last night, to come up with
dance moves that no one has ever imagined before is not easy to do, and
he not only did just that, but he made those moves his own, and today,
some 25 years later, you see kids and young adults mimick those moves
every day, on street corners and in social gatherings. How many kids
did you see wearing that red Michael Jackson outfit he wore in
"Thriller?" If you're like most of us, you saw hundreds of kids do so.
The one glove was another MJ fashion statement that swept through
popular culture, and you couldn't go anywhere that young people
gathered in large numbers without seeing several different people
sporting one glove. But it will be his music for which he's most
remembered. As a singer, it's hard enough to be "pitch perfect" in a
studio (just ask all the artists today who can't really sing, but have
their vocal tracks digitally enhanced by a studio plug-in called "Auto
Tune" to correct off-pitch phrases), Jackson could not only hit all the
notes with perfect pitch, but he could do it while exhibiting a level
of physicality on stage that no other performer in the world could
match, let alone while singing with perfect pitch. He was remarkable.
Today, the mix of physicality and music in most pop music stage
performance is taken for granted. But Michael Jackson is the one who
invented it, and he set the bar so high, no one else has really quite
reached it.
While I might never have recommended to my son and daughter-in-law that
they send my two grandbabies to Michael's house for a sleepover,
there's no getting around the fact that his enormous contribution to
the entertainment world was immense, and that he will be sorely missed
by millions of adoring fans both here in the United States and around
the world. Few performers have ever achieved the level of worldwide
adoration that was joyously bestowed on Mike.
Thankfully, his art will live on.
Sadly, however, (and this is the thing that saddens me most about his
death), we may never hear all the new songs he was working on for the
comeback tour that was planned to open next month. As much as people
like to talk about how his talent was waning, he never released an
album that didn't produce at least one or two Top 10 hits.
The world is a little less musical today, I'm sad to say.
RIP, MJ.
Randy
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>
>Gene Simmons had more talent in his tounge than MJ and the Beatles combined!
>:-)
>
I'm not going to even ask how you know that. :-)
BK
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
His only talent was he could sing and dance. Big deal There are
hundreds of young undiscovered talents out there just as good, he just
got a good break. He is not the messiah, although you would think
otherwise based on the 24 hour coverage in the media.
He owed millions upon millions of dollars. How many people got
screwed by his defaulting on financial commitments? He was accused
more than once of child molestation. It is alleged today about drug
and alcohol abuse. He took a perfectly healthy body and destroyed
it. He looked wierd, he acted weird. If this is someone we look up
to, there really is no hope. I certainly sympathasize with such an
untimely death and hope he didn't suffer in the end , but he brought
this and all his other problems on himself. Good riddance, no tears
here.
R&B
> On Jun 26, 2:41�am, KG <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 9:09�pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
>>
>> For all your ravings about "talent", you sure don't appreciate it.
>>
>> Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
>> combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
>> selling album ever for a reason.
>
> We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
> could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
> respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson. He is no different as a
> talent than the Jonas Bros. Current overhyped pop stars. Talent is not
> the issue. They fit some aspect of pop culture and so they sell
> records.
The "aspect" of pop culture you're referring to was INVENTED BY Michael
Jackson.
I'll agree with you that the record industry is comprised of record
company executives who are more followers than leaders. They find
something that works, then they go out and try to recruit talented
young people and "package" them in a way that fits the blueprint
already proven to work.
The reason you see so many Jonas Brothers and others of that ilk today
is because of Michael Jackson. His influence on the music business is
immense. You can't blame MJ that record company executives have sought
to mimmick his style by following his blueprint, only to be slapped in
the face with the reality that Michael Jackson had more talent in one
glove than most five artists trying to mimmick his style do today.
Justin Timberlake on Line 1.
> And I take nothing way from him here, but the overhype is ridiculous.
It may seem ridiculous to those not touched by his art. I'll grant you that.
But in the last 25 years, there's been no musical performer that has
influenced popular music and pop culture more than Michael Jackson.
And to deny that is to deny the obvious.
> I saw a commentator talking about thousands of people gathering at the
> coroners office, but the tight shot they presented had a clump of
> maybe 50 people and some space around them that looked like there was
> no one else there.
I saw a shot from a helecopter. There were hundreds, if not thousands,
of people there. And the crowd kept growing larger and larger as 11 PM
and Midnight (PT) approached.
> I also say a tight shot of his sidewalk star with
> nmaybe 10 or so things around it. You want to claim there are
> thousands of people and supprt it with a vid, show me the thousands of
> people in the vid.
I saw hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
Heck, even FOX News Channel was smart enough to realize that this was a
story worthy of wall-to-wall coverage.
Randy
Bobby Knight
<none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-25 20:25:51 -0400, Anonymous <nob...@nymu.eu> said:
>
>> How can we ever go on with our lives.
>>
>> Mine is over.
>
>
>I'm frankly not at all surprised by the cynical and often luke warm
>response shown here. It's fairly typical of the
>no-appreciation-for-art mentality that seems to permeate this room,
>which is populated by a mostly older, mostly white, mostly conservative
>crowd.
>
>That said, for people who choose to give music heavy emphasis in their
>lives -- and pop music in particular (by "pop," I mean popular, not
>some specific genre of music) -- Michael Jackson was a one-of-a-kind
>performer whose accomplishments are unrivaled.
>
>He sold more records than any recording artist in history.
No, Randy. That record belongs to the Beatles.
Everything else was dead on...but remember that it was pop music. Not
very cerebral.
bk
scarletfire77
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2009062615010775249-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
>
> The "aspect" of pop culture you're referring to was INVENTED BY Michael
> Jackson.
Thats up for arguement.
But Stanley Owsley III transformed it in 1965.
Bobby Knight
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> �I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
>> personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
>> None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
>>
>> BK- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>His only talent was he could sing and dance. Big deal There are
>hundreds of young undiscovered talents out there just as good, he just
>got a good break.
No Eric. You're just dead wrong about that. He was an absolute
amazing talent. There certainly aren't hundreds, or dozens that are
just as good at this time.
> He is not the messiah, although you would think
>otherwise based on the 24 hour coverage in the media.
> He owed millions upon millions of dollars. How many people got
>screwed by his defaulting on financial commitments? He was accused
>more than once of child molestation. It is alleged today about drug
>and alcohol abuse. He took a perfectly healthy body and destroyed
>it. He looked wierd, he acted weird. If this is someone we look up
>to, there really is no hope. I certainly sympathasize with such an
>untimely death and hope he didn't suffer in the end , but he brought
>this and all his other problems on himself. Good riddance, no tears
>here.
I agree with most of this. I don't think he was "looked up" for
anything but his talent. IMO your last remark is in poor taste.
"Good riddance" is for someone who is remarkably evil, and although he
did destroy his body, he wasn't evil.
bk
The moderator
I never was into Idol worship.
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
So we agree that your original post was total BS. I did hear them, and
they were VERY good. You seem to have a problem separating their
creativity from your obsession with of Milli Vanilli. They did record
"together" throughout this period - they also added multitracks and
other effects on the crude technology of the day.
Claiming that they couldn't play live even though you never heard them
certainly is your fault.
scarletfire77
He scratched $20 Million to shut up a witness.
scarletfire77
I have no reason to believe that they played live WELL just because you say
so.
Heck Shea stadium held 55,000 people.
I've met 3 Million who claim to have been there.
They were good singer songwriters. They couldn't play what they were selling
on their albums.
Kinda like some Monkeys.
The Hammer
> "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote in message
Oh brother, "INVENTED" by Michael Jackson. Before this is all over,
he will have been credited with cures for cancer, the invention of
the internet, and the fall of the Soviet Empire. Becoming laughable
really.
When I see him sing and dance, all I see is someone who looked like
they were having a seizure. He looked like he needed an enema, like
he had not taken a crap in weeks. No different than how any of us
would move about if we were in that situation. That hand on the
groin all the time, what was the significance of that, something real
real deep I am sure, certainly beyond my realm of comprehension.
R&B
> His only talent was he could sing and dance. Big deal There are
> hundreds of young undiscovered talents out there just as good, he just
> got a good break.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Truth is, if someone says they're just as good (or better), it's just
talk until they actually do it.
Kinda like you talking about beating Bret at golf.
> He was accused more than once of child molestation.
He was acquitted on all 11 criminal counts brought against him.
> It is alleged today about drug
> and alcohol abuse.
This I believe.
When the autopsy is made public, I suspect we're going to hear of a
prescription drug cocktail that brought about his cardiac arrest.
While I believe we're all accountable for our own choices, I also
acknowledge that not all people are as adept at choosing their friends
as perhaps they ought to be. According to several accounts from people
who were close to Michael, he was surrounded by enablers -- mostly
people who did not have his best interests at heart.
> He took a perfectly healthy body and destroyed it.
He claims that he had a skin condition that causes the pigmentation to
change in patches. Neither you nor I know whether that's true. A
cynic assumes the worst, and I guess that's you.
I, on the other hand, have a friend who suffers from this malady. An
African-American, this fellow's face has large patches of white that,
to someone a bit less empathetic, might make him appear as a bit of a
freak, or as a victim of some sort of accident with acid or something.
It's not exactly attractive.
If what Michael said about this condition is true, then it's not hard
to imagine why he might take steps to correct its cosmetic effects, so
as not to negatively impact how his fans see him.
That said, I would tend to agree that he went a bit too far.
I heard one family friend last night opine that Michael's obsession
with his face was due to unresolved issues he had with his father, who
beat him as a child. Whether this is true, none of us will ever really
know.
But unlike you, I'm not in the business of second-guessing personal
choices other people make with their lives.
> He looked wierd, he acted weird.
You look weird and act weird. Some would say weirder than Michael (on
both counts).
So what?
As a society, we tend to teach our children to follow the straight and
narrow, to not rock the boat, to go with the flow, to fit in and not be
so different that it raises a ruckus. Yet when we look around and
admire the icons of industry, of entertainment, of sport, of just about
every arena in life, the people most admired are the ones who blazed a
new trail, went against the flow, did it their own way, and set new
standards. Of all the greats in entertainment, industry, sports and
all other fields, one compliment you never hear is, "What made him so
great was that he was like all others, and didn't stand out from the
crowd."
Sometimes, Eric, weird is good.
It's sure worked for you.
> If this is someone we look up to, there really is no hope.
I haven't heard anyone suggest we should "look up" to Michael Jackson.
Only that he brought a level of showmanship to the popular music genre
that helped change the trajectory of popular music.
His influence on the music world is felt today, some 25 years since "Thriller."
Just look at this week's Billboard Hot 100 and you'll find a wealth of
talent there who have been following the Michael Jackson blueprint to
advance their careers, and they'll be the first ones to say so.
> I certainly sympathasize with such an
> untimely death and hope he didn't suffer in the end , but he brought
> this and all his other problems on himself.
The same can be said for most anyone.
I thought Sheryl Crow, who was one of Michael's backup singers during
the "Thriller" days, summed it up best when she said, "In hindsight,
did any of us really think that Michael Jackson would grow to be an old
man? I mean, can you imagine Michael Jackson as an 80-year-old?"
I sure couldn't.
> Good riddance, no tears here.
MJ brought joy to tens of millions of people worldwide through his art,
and tears to millions more through his death.
That you take such a callous attitude about an adored icon just tells
us that you weren't a fan, and you demand of people you don't even know
that they live their lives as you would choose to live your own.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it.
Randy
Bobby Knight
<scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:e97a45h99h8n5s9b2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>> <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
>>>> personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
>>>> None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
>He scratched $20 Million to shut up a witness.
Did you read above? He was acquitted of the one case that came to
trial. He may, or may not, have been guilty when he settled. There
have been a ton of settlements for reasons other than guilt.
bk
The Hammer
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>
Good riddance is reserved for lots of people, not just remakably
evil.
We worship false gods, we pay tribute to those not worthy. I pay
tribute to our troops, to people who volunteer helping the poor and
infirmed, to scientists that are working for cures to terrible
diseases. I pay tribute to Farrah Fawcett who fought so bravely
against cancer and her jouney to find a cure is a story that is far
more inspiring than that of an accused child molestor, someone who
owes millions, and today is accused of drug and alcohol abuse.
This guy does not deserve 24 hour coverage. But the media is giving
the masses what they want. This is someone who we look up to, big
time for sure, and then we wonder why we are in the shape we are in.
Bobby Knight
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 3:14�pm, "scarletfire77" <scarletfir...@heynow.com> wrote:
>> "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2009062615010775249-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The "aspect" of pop culture you're referring to was INVENTED BY Michael
>> > Jackson.
>>
>> Thats up for arguement.
>>
>> But Stanley Owsley III transformed it in 1965.
>
>
>Oh brother, "INVENTED" by Michael Jackson. Before this is all over,
>he will have been credited with cures for cancer, the invention of
>the internet, and the fall of the Soviet Empire. Becoming laughable
>really.
>
He qualified that by saying the "aspect" of pop culture discussed.
> When I see him sing and dance, all I see is someone who looked like
>they were having a seizure. He looked like he needed an enema, like
>he had not taken a crap in weeks. No different than how any of us
>would move about if we were in that situation. That hand on the
>groin all the time, what was the significance of that, something real
>real deep I am sure, certainly beyond my realm of comprehension.
His dancing wasn't something that I enjoyed either. However, those
that know....KNOW...like the major choreographers like Glenn Douglas
Packard and Michael Peters, disagree with you.
bk
Loudon Briggs
>He sold more records than any recording artist in history. His
>"Thriller" album was #1 for 37 weeks, and remains to this day the
>largest-selling album of all time.
Randy, on the news last night they indicated it was the second largest
of all time... a Beatles record was #1, but, they didn't specify which
album. Also, I've heard or read that the Eagles had the alltime best
seller.
My guess is that most reports carry some kind of "qualifier" and
perhaps we don't really know the answer.
--
Loudon R. Briggs lar...@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
scarletfire77
He was acquitted in all criminal cases.
He scratched $20 Million to avoid a civil case by paying a witness to keep
quiet..
The Hammer
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:21:09 -0700, "scarletfire77"
>
>
> >"Bobby Knight" <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:e97a45h99h8n5s9b2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
> >> <GaGolfer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
> >>>> personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
> >>>> None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
> >He scratched $20 Million to shut up a witness.
>
> Did you read above? He was acquitted of the one case that came to
> trial. He may, or may not, have been guilty when he settled. There
> have been a ton of settlements for reasons other than guilt.
>
> bk
If he had an ounce of sense, he would not have put himself in the
position of being accused in the first place. Grown men don't hang
out with little boys And grown men don't sleep with little boys.
There are of course excpetions to this, most innocent, but any public
figure with a degree of sense does not put himself repeatedly in the
position he did. it was reckless. He was reckless with money, his
health, seemingly with everything. He is not someone that should be
looked up to. He is another Hollywood icon gone wrong. This is a
horror story. Shows us that money and fame cannot buy happiness. And
shows us how dysfunctional many of the people we look up to are.
Bobby Knight
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 3:16�pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>> I agree with most of this. �I don't think he was "looked up" for
>> anything but his talent. �IMO your last remark is in poor taste.
>> "Good riddance" is for someone who is remarkably evil, and although he
>> did destroy his body, he wasn't evil.
>>
>> bk
>
>
>Good riddance is reserved for lots of people, not just remakably
>evil.
Sad that you feel that way.
> We worship false gods, we pay tribute to those not worthy. I pay
>tribute to our troops, to people who volunteer helping the poor and
>infirmed, to scientists that are working for cures to terrible
>diseases. I pay tribute to Farrah Fawcett who fought so bravely
>against cancer and her jouney to find a cure is a story that is far
>more inspiring than that of an accused child molestor, someone who
>owes millions, and today is accused of drug and alcohol abuse.
>
Farrah received a lot of tribute too, but she wasn't as big a star.
>This guy does not deserve 24 hour coverage. But the media is giving
>the masses what they want.
Do you think that the media is going to give people what they don't
want? Get serious Eric. Of course they're going to cover this to the
hilt....for the reason you state. The masses want it. You aren't the
deciding factor in what's deserved.
> This is someone who we look up to, big time for sure, and then we wonder why we are in the shape we are in.
Try to read this and digest it without thinking of answering first.
You won't find very many who looked up to him for his private life,
but a lot because of his talent.
--
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
�Someone likes every shot�
bk
Dene
> On Jun 26, 1:44 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "scarletfire77" <scarletfir...@heynow.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:_b71m.3$Xc...@newsfe14.iad...
>
> > >news:d75c4cd2-42be-4084...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > > The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
> > > a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
>
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > > Good pop songwriters
> > > Couldn't play well live. Eventually gave up playing live.
> > > Became a studio band with professional musicians' support via the studio.
>
> > > Ho Hum
>
> > never really saw what the big deal was about the Beatles either. Now KISS,
> > there was a band! ;-)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has to be kidding. Mike from Minn. music man must be Ted Nugent.
-Greg
Bobby Knight
<scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:ug8a45pmnnae9n16d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:21:09 -0700, "scarletfire77"
>> <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bobby Knight" <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:e97a45h99h8n5s9b2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>>>> <GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
>>>>>> personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
>>>>>> None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
>>
>>>He scratched $20 Million to shut up a witness.
>>
>> Did you read above? He was acquitted of the one case that came to
>> trial. He may, or may not, have been guilty when he settled. There
>> have been a ton of settlements for reasons other than guilt.
>>
>> bk
>
>He was acquitted in all criminal cases.
I only knew of one. Didn't follow all of his personal stuff.
>He scratched $20 Million to avoid a civil case by paying a witness to keep
>quiet..
I repeat, There have been a ton of settlements for reasons other
than guilt.
BK
Bobby Knight
Captain obvious speaks. :-)
BK
Bobby Knight
<no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
>I never was into Idol worship.
>
Understandable. Otherwise yours would have to include millions.
BK
Dene
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:40 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>
> >> I think that MJ was a complete weirdo, and had little respect for his
> >> personal life, but he was acquitted on the child molestation charges.
> >> None of that has anything to do with his talents though.
>
> >> BK- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >His only talent was he could sing and dance. Big deal There are
> >hundreds of young undiscovered talents out there just as good, he just
> >got a good break.
>
> No Eric. You're just dead wrong about that. He was an absolute
> amazing talent. There certainly aren't hundreds, or dozens that are
> just as good at this time.
Agree. His work with Quincy Jones was absolutely amazing. Thriller
was a fabulous album. I've never been a fan of pop but watching MJ
perform was mesmorizing.
-Greg
scarletfire77
I know that first hand.
But $20 million.
Probably more that he's have spent going through the case and losing.
MNMikeW
"Loudon Briggs" <lar...@bbz.net> wrote in message
news:cr8a45pp6i4ijiicn...@4ax.com...
> "R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He sold more records than any recording artist in history. His
>>"Thriller" album was #1 for 37 weeks, and remains to this day the
>>largest-selling album of all time.
>
> Randy, on the news last night they indicated it was the second largest
> of all time... a Beatles record was #1, but, they didn't specify which
> album. Also, I've heard or read that the Eagles had the alltime best
> seller.
>
MNMikeW
"Dene" <gds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9e9dbbbd-863d-4c7f...@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
-Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wango Tango baby!
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
So, as I said, you have not one shred of actual evidence for your claim
that they could not play live. Not one. That being the case, then . . . .
> Heck Shea stadium held 55,000 people.
> I've met 3 Million who claim to have been there.
> They were good singer songwriters. They couldn't play what they were selling
> on their albums.
> Kinda like some Monkeys.
. . . .is just more speculative and baseless BS. Give it up.
R&B
Here we go again with wack-o cynicism, and in this case, from a person
who has shown exactly ZERO aptitude for anything related to art.
You're entitled to your opinion.
But you wouldn't know art if it bit your dick off. Assuming, of
course, you have a dick.
Randy
Dinosaur_Sr
> On 2009-06-26 11:32:30 -0400, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 2:41 am, KG <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 25, 9:09 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
>
> >> For all your ravings about "talent", you sure don't appreciate it.
>
> >> Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
> >> combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
> >> selling album ever for a reason.
>
> > We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
> > could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
> > respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson. He is no different as a
> > talent than the Jonas Bros. Current overhyped pop stars. Talent is not
> > the issue. They fit some aspect of pop culture and so they sell
> > records.
>
> The "aspect" of pop culture you're referring to was INVENTED BY Michael
> Jackson.
>
> company executives who are more followers than leaders. They find
> something that works, then they go out and try to recruit talented
> young people and "package" them in a way that fits the blueprint
> already proven to work.
>
> The reason you see so many Jonas Brothers and others of that ilk today
> is because of Michael Jackson. His influence on the music business is
> immense. You can't blame MJ that record company executives have sought
> to mimmick his style by following his blueprint, only to be slapped in
> the face with the reality that Michael Jackson had more talent in one
> glove than most five artists trying to mimmick his style do today.
>
> Justin Timberlake on Line 1.
>
> > And I take nothing way from him here, but the overhype is ridiculous.
>
> It may seem ridiculous to those not touched by his art. I'll grant you that.
>
> But in the last 25 years, there's been no musical performer that has
> influenced popular music and pop culture more than Michael Jackson.
> And to deny that is to deny the obvious.
>
> > I saw a commentator talking about thousands of people gathering at the
> > coroners office, but the tight shot they presented had a clump of
> > maybe 50 people and some space around them that looked like there was
> > no one else there.
>
> I saw a shot from a helecopter. There were hundreds, if not thousands,
> of people there. And the crowd kept growing larger and larger as 11 PM
> and Midnight (PT) approached.
>
> > I also say a tight shot of his sidewalk star with
> > nmaybe 10 or so things around it. You want to claim there are
> > thousands of people and supprt it with a vid, show me the thousands of
> > people in the vid.
>
> I saw hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
>
> Heck, even FOX News Channel was smart enough to realize that this was a
> story worthy of wall-to-wall coverage.
>
> Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That may be true for some case. Certainly not the music I am into
though, which is blues and music realted to blues.
Me, I am more than a bit of a news junkie, and I watch the news
channels a lot. Right now I am not watching, just like I will not
watch anything like Anna Nicole Smith or JFK Jr. Their stories are not
news to me.
I suspect a lot of other people like me are not watching also, as
evidenced by the lack of people at the venues from which they are
broadcasting the story. If I set up all the major network news outlets
at any site I would draw at least that size a crowd.
In any event, they lose me, as do their advertizers. IMHO, it's a dumb
move to cover these non stories like this.
R&B
People who know art know what Michael brought to the world.
Those who don't, don't.
It's as simple as that.
(For the record, I don't have to LIKE an artist to appreciate their
art. There are plenty of singers and songwriters for whom I have no
personal interest, or even least amount of affection for their work.
But most artists appreciate the art itself, even when it's a genre for
which they have no affinity.)
Eric is an expert in emptying bed pans.
Maybe in his view, that's art.
And I suppose if he spilled it on the floor, it might be.
Either way, when reading these posts, consider the source.
Randy
scarletfire77
I have the 3 Hollywood Bowl recordings that Capital tried to keep in their
vault.
They are very average, not bad, just not very good. I was not at any of
these 3 concerts, but I have the recordings.
Bobby Knight
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>Me, I am more than a bit of a news junkie, and I watch the news
>channels a lot. Right now I am not watching, just like I will not
>watch anything like Anna Nicole Smith or JFK Jr. Their stories are not
>news to me.
>
>I suspect a lot of other people like me are not watching also, as
>evidenced by the lack of people at the venues from which they are
>broadcasting the story. If I set up all the major network news outlets
>at any site I would draw at least that size a crowd.
>
>In any event, they lose me, as do their advertizers. IMHO, it's a dumb
>move to cover these non stories like this.
That tells us why you're a teacher at a Mississippi school instead of
a Marketing Vice-President at a major network.
bk
R&B
There's a difference between admiration of a person's art and "idol worship."
Of course to a simpleton like you, I suppose it's hard to distinguish
between them.
As usual, you show an incredible grasp of nothing.
Randy
Bobby Knight
Randy...make sure that you're responding to the right person here. :-)
BK
MNMikeW
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2009062616172750073-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
>
> Either way, when reading these posts, consider the source.
>
> Randy
>
MNMikeW
I thought he was? :-)
R&B
> "R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>
>> He sold more records than any recording artist in history. His
>> "Thriller" album was #1 for 37 weeks, and remains to this day the
>> largest-selling album of all time.
>
> Randy, on the news last night they indicated it was the second largest
> of all time... a Beatles record was #1, but, they didn't specify which
> album. Also, I've heard or read that the Eagles had the alltime best
> seller.
I may have mispoken when I said he had sold more records than anyone.
The figures I'm recalling may have been domestic sales, or perhaps
worldwide.
Either way, "Thriller" is the #1-selling album of all time.
Peter Frampton's "Frampton Comes Alive" is the #1-selling LIVE album of
all time.
> My guess is that most reports carry some kind of "qualifier" and
> perhaps we don't really know the answer.
Perhaps.
The point remains, MJ's body of work stands as one of the great
libraries of all time, and arguably the greatest in the pop music
genre. This is especially striking given that it came at a time when
lots of radio stations (and MTV) refused to play his music...until
"Thriller" came along. MJ may not have been everyone's cup of tea.
But he was, without question, the biggest star in entertainment for
about 15 years, and his career of making #1 hit records spanned a
longer period of time than any other artist since the dawn of recorded
music.
Randy
Herbert
good post. you dropped some names and droned on about your experience
in the "biz". With a good bowling analogy or mentioning some "dear
friends" you could have had the hat trick.
SG
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:53:02 -0400, "R&B"
> <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-25 20:25:51 -0400, Anonymous <nob...@nymu.eu> said:
>>
>>> How can we ever go on with our lives.
>>>
>>> Mine is over.
>>
>> I'm frankly not at all surprised by the cynical and often luke warm
>> response shown here. It's fairly typical of the
>> no-appreciation-for-art mentality that seems to permeate this room,
>> which is populated by a mostly older, mostly white, mostly conservative
>> crowd.
>>
>> That said, for people who choose to give music heavy emphasis in their
>> lives -- and pop music in particular (by "pop," I mean popular, not
>> some specific genre of music) -- Michael Jackson was a one-of-a-kind
>> performer whose accomplishments are unrivaled.
>>
>> He sold more records than any recording artist in history.
> No, Randy. That record belongs to the Beatles.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
#1 Beatles
#2 Elvis
#3 Bing Crosby
#4 Michael Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States
#1 Eagles
#2 Michael Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide
#1 Thriller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_worldwide
way down the list - Billie Jean
Bobby Knight
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>He sold more records than any recording artist in history.
>No, Randy. That record belongs to the Beatles.
And most of the Beatles records Jackson sold were after the Beatles
top popularity.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
<none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>The point remains, MJ's body of work stands as one of the great
>libraries of all time, and arguably the greatest in the pop music
>genre.
It could be - his generation was after mine, and as with most people,
we don't quite like the next generation's music as much.
His popularity was when the market was largest before the industry
started changing, so some of his records will stand a long time.
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
Right, and the recording technology was about as good as the
amplification technology, i.e. piss poor. It is well documented that the
group chatted amongst themselves while playing these huge venues,
because the music couldn't be heard any way over the adolescent
screaming anyway.
Look, we have already established unequivocally that you have nothing
more to base this assertion on than three old, poorly recorded, LPs. You
never did see them live - I did. So please drop it and go away.
BAR
I suppose you've purchased some of Maplethorpe's pieces?
The Moderator
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:nmna45l0smeme2ld6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:25:42 -0400, "R&B"
> <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>>The point remains, MJ's body of work stands as one of the great
>>libraries of all time, and arguably the greatest in the pop music
>>genre.
>
> It could be - his generation was after mine, and as with most people,
> we don't quite like the next generation's music as much.
>
> His popularity was when the market was largest before the industry
> started changing, so some of his records will stand a long time.
>
That was true until my generation. My children have the same music on their
ipods that I listened to when I conceived them.
Annika1980
> Right I never heard them because they quit playing in '63.
Wrong.
scarletfire77
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-D1E76B...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Yeah, where?
scarletfire77
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d76758bb-9fae-4c17...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Wrong.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54848350
I didn't hit the link but I have the Hollywood Bowl 1964/1965 release from
Capital.
Gosh it's less than a Monkeys' reunion.
Capital never wanted this to leak out.
Annika1980
> "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d76758bb-9fae-4c17...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 2:40 pm, "scarletfire77" <scarletfir...@heynow.com> wrote:
>
> > Right I never heard them because they quit playing in '63.
>
> Wrong.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54848350
>
> I didn't hit the link but I have the Hollywood Bowl 1964/1965 release from
> Capital.
So why did you say they quit in 1963?
The pic I posted was of them in 1966.
The Hammer
> On 2009-06-26 15:49:27 -0400, Loudon Briggs <lar...@bbz.net> said:
>
He only gets a pass on his disgusting behavior because he can sing and
dance. If he was a doctor, a policeman, or soldier, or teacher, or
anyone, and was accused of child molestation, being a deadbeat in the
hundreds of millions, drugs and alcohol abuse, public displays that
far exceed any definition of weird, this person would not get the same
consideration. They would be condemmed, despite any good they also
may have done.
Folks hunger for entertainment. To fill a void in their lives. Even
when the entertainer is a friggin sleaze, it is ignored, because you
need entertainment. You live vicariously through these people, how
sad. To me a deadbeat is a deadbeat. Someone who sleeps with and
entertains young boys with no other chaparones or adults in presence
has serious problems, Someone who does drugs and alcohol is reckless
and stupid. Someone who deforms their body the way this guy did, well
what else can you say. When you do a balance sheet of desireable and
undesireable, this guy goes off the undesireable scale. But he
entertains you, fills a void in your lives, oh well, we can forget all
the rest. More saying about you all then anything else. I say good
riddance. Good friggin riddance. Be happy when we can hear more
important things on the news. But as long as the average cretin keeps
tuning in, we will keep on hearing it. It is all about ratings, not
about substance or human decency.
Alan Baker
<610073f7-f068-450b...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:41�am, KG <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 9:09�pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
> >
> > For all your ravings about "talent", you sure don't appreciate it.
> >
> > Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
> > combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
> > selling album ever for a reason.
>
> We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
> could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
> respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson. He is no different as a
> talent than the Jonas Bros. Current overhyped pop stars. Talent is not
> the issue. They fit some aspect of pop culture and so they sell
> records.
>
> And I take nothing way from him here, but the overhype is ridiculous.
> I saw a commentator talking about thousands of people gathering at the
> coroners office, but the tight shot they presented had a clump of
> maybe 50 people and some space around them that looked like there was
> no one else there. I also say a tight shot of his sidewalk star with
> nmaybe 10 or so things around it. You want to claim there are
> thousands of people and supprt it with a vid, show me the thousands of
> people in the vid.
You, sir, have no clue.
Those folks on Broadway couldn't create it. Michael could and did.
The Jonas Brothers? Please.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
<10acbb60-cf1d-46ee...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 12:36�pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:16:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >
> >
> >
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 26, 10:51�am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
> >
> > >> <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
> > >> >I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
> > >> >There was a time I watched him every night. What I don't get is the
> > >> >wall to wall coverage of Jackson on news channels. He isn't that big a
> > >> >deal. I suspect that if the cameras weren't there, no one elese would
> > >> >be either. It's like Anna Nicole Smith and JFK Jr...wall to wall
> > >> >coverage of people that really aren't that big a deal...but you can't
> > >> >watch the news unless that's what you want to see.
> >
> > >> Only an idiot would compare Michael Jackson to Anna Nicole Smith, but
> > >> then look who wrote it. �Smith had no talent, JFK Jr. �had the name,
> > >> and McMahon was great as a foil for Carson. �None of them are
> > >> comparable to Jackson.
> >
> > >> MJ certainly wasn't my cup of tea, but I damned sure recognize the
> > >> amazing talent that he had. � I didn't buy any of his records, CDs,
> > >> videos, or attend any appearances....and �had to separate his life
> > >> into the personal and professional. �The personal was repugnant to me,
> > >> but there's no denying him the fact that he was the biggest star on
> > >> the planet in the last 50 years, deservedly, �and that's why the
> > >> wall-to-wall coverage. �
> >
> > >> I'd rather say that about Sinatra, Bennett or Streisand, but it just
> > >> ain't so.
> >
> > >> BK
> >
> > >The biggest star on the planet of the last 50 years? You ever hear of
> > >a little band from Liverpool called the Beatles?
> >
> > No contest. �They did one thing, he was multi-talented.
> >
> > Frankly I didn't care for either.
> >
> > BK
>
> They did one thing? They wrote songs, they played instruments, they
> sang. MJ sang and danced.
And wrote those songs...
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
Anywhere you like.
William Clark
"scarletfire77" <scarle...@heynow.com> wrote:
First off, it's "Capitol", secondly, I have already pointed out the
quality of amplification and recording back then.
So we have clearly established, yet again, that you simply don't have a
clue what you are talking about.
I would be quiet rather than embarrass myself any further, if I were you.
Dinosaur_Sr
> On 2009-06-26 11:32:30 -0400, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 2:41 am, KG <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
>
>
> >> Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
> >> combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
> >> selling album ever for a reason.
>
> > We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
> > could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
> > respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson. He is no different as a
> > talent than the Jonas Bros. Current overhyped pop stars. Talent is not
> > the issue. They fit some aspect of pop culture and so they sell
> > records.
>
> Jackson.
>
> company executives who are more followers than leaders. They find
> something that works, then they go out and try to recruit talented
> young people and "package" them in a way that fits the blueprint
> already proven to work.
>
> The reason you see so many Jonas Brothers and others of that ilk today
> is because of Michael Jackson. His influence on the music business is
> immense. You can't blame MJ that record company executives have sought
> to mimmick his style by following his blueprint, only to be slapped in
> the face with the reality that Michael Jackson had more talent in one
> glove than most five artists trying to mimmick his style do today.
>
> Justin Timberlake on Line 1.
>
> > And I take nothing way from him here, but the overhype is ridiculous.
>
>
> But in the last 25 years, there's been no musical performer that has
> influenced popular music and pop culture more than Michael Jackson.
> And to deny that is to deny the obvious.
>
> > I saw a commentator talking about thousands of people gathering at the
> > coroners office, but the tight shot they presented had a clump of
> > maybe 50 people and some space around them that looked like there was
> > no one else there.
>
> of people there. And the crowd kept growing larger and larger as 11 PM
> and Midnight (PT) approached.
>
> > I also say a tight shot of his sidewalk star with
> > nmaybe 10 or so things around it. You want to claim there are
> > thousands of people and supprt it with a vid, show me the thousands of
> > people in the vid.
>
>
> Heck, even FOX News Channel was smart enough to realize that this was a
> story worthy of wall-to-wall coverage.
>
> Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, we each have our own perspective on this. From what I can see,
the person who invented the basic style Michael Jackson represents is
more like James Brown. Michael Jackson was more of an endpoint for
that than a beginning of anything. Rap and then Hip Hop came along and
blew that style away. REM seemes to me to have started the style I see
with the Jonas Bros, with the insipid repulsive vocals more akin to
John Mayer than Michael Jackson, and unlike the Jonas Bros, Jackson
did have a great singing voice.
A current representative of the tradition Jackson embodied is Britney
Spears, who proves one needs to real talent to be a pop star...and I
do not deny Jacksons talent, but it was not earth shattering, and the
music was no more than a performer of the pop music of the day that
comes and goes. He was no Muddy Waters, for example.
KG
> On Jun 26, 2:41 am, KG <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 9:09 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > I was never into Jackson at all. Ed McMahon meant much more to me.
>
> > For all your ravings about "talent", you sure don't appreciate it.
>
> > Jackson was a repulsive weirdo, but no performer has ever had his
> > combination of singing and dancing chops. "Thriller" was the best
> > selling album ever for a reason.
>
> We each have our own tastes, and I respect yours here, but to me, I
> could find lots of people on say Broadway who have more talent with
> respect to dancing and singing thaan Jackson.
<snip>
I'm not going to go into it (be a waste of effort), but you don't know
what you're talking about.
scarletfire77
WE?
No it's your opinion that recording quality was bad in the 60"s
Not WE
I have these Live releases and Soundboards-->
The Supremes at the Copa Club NYC, 1965
Jimi Hendrix, Live at Woburn, 1968
Yardbirds, Live at Anderson Theater NYC, 1968
Jerry Lee Lewis Live at the Star Club NYC, 1964
The Jefferson Airplane, Bless It's Pointed Little Head, 1968
Del Shannon 1961
Bob Dylan Live at Royal Albert hall, 1966
Live Byrds, The Filmore East 1968
Grateful Dead, Live at Lake Tahoe 1968
Buddy Holley, Live from Germany 1958
Rolling Stones, Get Yer Yas Out, 1969
CSNY, 4 entire nights from the Filmore East 1969, used for 4 Way Street
release
The Monterey Pop Festival, 1967
Woodstock, 1969
To name a few, all great sound quality.
R&B
I wouldn't want you to have to part with them.
Randy
R&B
Wrong again.
Rap and Hip Hop artists (the latter, in particular) have been
especially vocal in recent days about the ways in which MJ influenced
the genre. Of course since you're not exactly a fan of either type of
music (and I'm guessing you probably never listen to it), you wouldn't
know the amount with which MJ influenced it. Since Hip-Hop is about
the only type of music I listen to, I can tell you flat-out that MJ's
influence on numerous artists can be heard every single day on the
radio.
Did the genre move on and expand on what MJ did? Well, of course.
Life does go on, and things do move forward, for better or worse.
That's always been true, and it always will be.
But the fact remains that nearly every major artist in the genre
stepped forward in recent days to point out how MJ left a huge
footprint on music, and R&B (the music genre, not me) and Hip Hop in
particular.
Look, MJ didn't invent signing and dancing. Nobody said he did.
Neither did Sammy Davis, Jr., but few people with an active brain stem
and an awareness of pop culture failed to recognize that SD made an
enormous contibution and brought a skillset to the entertainment world
that was, at the time, unusual, if not totally unique. His impact was
felt throughout the entertainment business. Has the world survived
since his death? Well, of course. Just as it will survive after MJ.
But to dismiss MJ as just another entertainer does little else but put
your own ignorance about the subject on full display.
> REM seemes to me to have started the style I see
> with the Jonas Bros, with the insipid repulsive vocals more akin to
> John Mayer than Michael Jackson, and unlike the Jonas Bros, Jackson
> did have a great singing voice.
And who was the first "boy band" of the rock era?
The Jackson Five.
With 9-year-old Michael Jackson as its lead singer.
> A current representative of the tradition Jackson embodied is Britney
> Spears, who proves one needs to real talent to be a pop star...and I
> do not deny Jacksons talent, but it was not earth shattering, and the
> music was no more than a performer of the pop music of the day that
> comes and goes. He was no Muddy Waters, for example.
Muddy Waters never had a #1 single or a #1 album. He never won a
Grammy, let alone a record EIGHT IN ONE NIGHT. Muddy Waters never
played to a packed football stadium of 50,000 people, let alone doing
so in city after city in country after country for months at a time.
People never paid $50 for a ticket to see Muddy Waters, let alone had
to wait to see if they'd win a lottery first before finding out if
they'd even be eligible to purchase a ticket. Fred Astaire never
called Muddy Waters the greatest dancer in the world as he did about
MJ. Muddy Waters didn't break social barriers, like becoming the first
black artist to be played on MTV, as MJ did, thereby opening the door
to a whole generation of black artists since the 1980s. Muddy Waters'
music, while undeniably significant and groundbreaking in the world of
blues, isn't heard on thousands of radio stations worldwide as MJ's
music was (and will be for decades to come in the future). And there's
simply no denying that blues as a genre is but a fraction the size of
pop music. Muddy Waters was a big fish in a small pond. MJ was a big
fish in the biggest musical pond there is.
To compare the two is ridiculous. There is no comparison.
I get it. You prefer blues over pop music. That's cool. Everyone is
entitled to their own taste in music. One isn't "better" than the
other. And there's no debating that Muddy Waters had a huge influence
on many blues musicians. But blues as a genre is, at best, just a
small niche in the world of popular music, while MJ was THE FACE OF
popular music, worldwide, for a decade, and his hits ruled the charts
whenever his latest album was released for nearly 30 years.
Randy
Lloyd Parsons
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
Comparing Muddy Waters, and a slew of other black blues men/women to
Michael Jackson in this manner is totally unfair.
At the height of the blues singers careers, their music was only played
on black radio stations, no TV and concerts were all in black venues.
That was the times.
But Muddy Water, Jimmy Reed and a whole lot more have influenced far
more than just the blues. Rock & roll is still playing many of those
riffs this very day. And a great band like the Beatles got much of
their sound and style from all those old blues singers.
It could legitimately be said that rock & roll got its very start in
those black juke joints because it is true.
R&B
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:25:42 -0400, "R&B"
> <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote:
>
>> The point remains, MJ's body of work stands as one of the great
>> libraries of all time, and arguably the greatest in the pop music
>> genre.
>
> It could be - his generation was after mine, and as with most people,
> we don't quite like the next generation's music as much.
And herein lies a fundamental difference between myself and many in this room.
Becoming a teenager right at the height of the British Invasion of the
1960s, the music of my youth was dominated by The Beatles, Motown, the
Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys (the first concert I ever attended),
Herman's Hermits, the Mamas and Papas, etc.
As a Top 40 disc jockey on the radio starting in 1970, I played more
than my share of Led Zeppelin, Lynyrd Skynrd, Bee Gees (both the
pre-disco Bee Gees, who were great, and the Saturday Night Fever Bee
Gees, whose commercial success was enormous -- both great) and many
more.
My dad, a member of America's "Greatest Generation," who fought in
WWII, was pretty conservative when it came to fashion and style. He
resisted me growing my hair out, wearing bell-bottoms in the '60s, and
"that noise you kids call music."
I can't point to a specific day or a specific event that prompted it,
but I remember quite well making a conscious decision somewhere along
the line in my late teens that I would never "choose to be old" like my
father had, and that I would never dismiss the next generation's music
and fashion the way the older generation had done when I was growing
up. And while there is certainly music today that the younger
generation enjoys that I just don't "get," I've never dismissed any of
it out of hand the way I see many people of my age do. Certainly there
are some things about youth fashion in recent years that I would never
wear (like wearing my pants down below my butt crack, for which the
world owes me a huge debt of thanks), but I've rarely, if ever,
articulated any dislike for those who do. Frankly, I think this
insistence on being open-minded about how music and fashion evolves
from generation to generation is one of the things, maybe the biggest
thing, that has kept me young at heart, even if I don't exactly look
like I did 30 years ago. And I know it's why I prefer listening to Hip
Hop (and a decade or so earlier, a genre known as "Euro Pop") more than
I ever enjoyed listening to "Oldies" from the era of my youth. As I've
often said, I can go the rest of my life without ever hearing another
goddamn Lynyrd Skynyrd or Led Zeppelin song and it will be just fine
with me. Heck, I PLAYED all those songs on the radio about 10,000
times each, so if I never hear them again, that would be far more to my
liking.
It doesn't surprise me the least that so many here dismiss the music of
a generation that came up behind you. That's the norm. I get that.
I just find it sad.
Retaining a bit of "child-like" qualities (perhaps not to the extent
that Mr. Jackson did) is not such a bad thing. But then again, you and
I weren't deprived of a childhood the way MJ was, so we can't really
grasp the true nature of things that led to MJ evolving into the
man-child that he was.
He was a tragic figure, no doubt. And he was a shell of a human being
in his final years -- maybe his final decade or so.
But in most cases, I don't admire artists for their LIVES, I admire
them for their ART.
And MJ created some that will endure for a very long time.
> His popularity was when the market was largest before the industry
> started changing, so some of his records will stand a long time.
That is very true.
His career also spanned across an important transition in the music
industry. Prior to the early 1980s, it was very rare when a musical
group or solo artist was SEEN singing their songs, except during live
concerts or club performances. When MTV came along, the record
industry was in a free-fall. Record sales had stagnated, and the
record labels were in trouble. Some would argue this was because of
the disco craze that swept the country in the mid- to late- 1970s, and
I'm not sure I would disagree. But whatever the cause, it's a widely
acknowledged fact within the entertainment world that the dawn of music
VIDEOS, brought about with the launch of MTV, played an integral role
in re-energizing the music business. And Michael Jackson was the first
to make music videos as big or bigger a production as the music itself.
Until MJ's videos came along, it was unheard of to bring in a Stephen
Spielberg or John Landis to produce music videos, or to spend millions
on the production of them. The national debut of MJ's "Thriller" music
video (the long version, which was 11 minutes) aired on FOX, and it
attracted the largest viewing audience FOX had ever enjoyed up to that
point. And while that's not saying much in the early 1980s (FOX hadn't
really become a full-blown network just yet), it was significant at the
time, and sent shock waves through the entertainment business.
Since file-sharing began in the 1990s, followed by the NAPSTER case
that was settled by the Supreme Court, the record business has been
trying to re-invent its business model. Today, record sales have been
largely replaced by iTunes sales. Instead of carrying around "ghetto
blasters," kids today carry tens of thousands of songs around in their
tiny iPods and iPhones. (My daughter-in-law owns at least FIVE iPods,
each of which is filled to capacity with music.) Yet despite this easy
access to music at affordable prices (a single song today is 99-cents,
the same price within a few pennies that a 45-RPM single sold for when
I was in high school in the '60s), MJ's record for music sales remains
a record today.
And check the pop charts next week. Mark my words: MJ will be back on
it, despite not having released any new material in nearly a decade.
He enjoyed a remarkable career while enduring a very troubled life.
I thought Sheryl Crow, a former backup singer for MJ during the
"Thriller" days, summed it up best when she said, "Did any of us really
envision seeing Michael Jackson grow old?"
MJ was the consummate entertainer, and the quintessential show business
professional. His death at age 50, on the eve of his farewell tour,
merely abided by Show Business Rule Number One: Leave 'em wanting more.
Randy
Dinosaur_Sr
First off, I cannot be wrong here. I do state my opinion on these
things, and what I know here is obviously quite different from what
you know, and that's fine with me, I enjoyed reading your post and
respect your opinion here, and I do learn things from time to time,
but in this case while we can discuss this, I doubt we are going to
change each others mind. There is no right or wrong, just different
ways of looking at this.
Doesn't change mine though. Muddy Waters was far more influential in
the area of R&B music, or any other sort of blues realted music than
Michael Jackson, and there is nothing to debate here IMHO, it's a
simple matter of knowledge, and these fora are hardly useful as means
to educate people. And you are right, there is no comparision. People
will be playing Muddy Waters licks long after Jackson is forgotten.
While some people would pay big bucks to see Jackson, I wouldn't walk
across the street...but in the day he was big. I used to play his
music in my store, and the guys hated it because they were cool
progressive rocker types...but it brought people into the store...so I
played it. He was a talented "hitmaker" in his day, that's for sure.
Today, however, his music is nowhere. Hip hoppers can laud him all
they want when he is dead, as a tribute, but the fact is last week
they wouldn't have given him the time of day. He was more meaningful
back in the Days of the Jackson 5 though, but that too is JMHO.
I could feel sorry for a guy like Jackson, but the fact is he never
got over the loss of populatirty that characterizes pop culture. A lot
of these people cannot take not being the big time center of attention
and degenerate into various idiot behaviors as crys for attention, and
he was a king of that. The best lesson from Michael Jackson is to take
it when you can get it and be happy you had it for as long as you had
it. Don't take yourself too seriously. To think you get there because
you are som much better than everyone else is a devastating false
illusion. You were luckier than everyone else.
They still play Steven Fosters music all the time in the US. He wrote
for a guy named Christie, who had a group called the Christie
Minstrels. They were big in their day. Foster was a bum in the
streets. He Wrote Hard Times Come Again No More, for example,
something he knew a lot more about that Jackson ever did...and people
will play that song long after Jackson is forgotten as well, a far
better song than Billie Jean! ...as is say Can't Be Satisfied, or
Hoochie Coochie Man, which people will also play long after Jackson is
forgotten.
Pop culture simply isn't that meaningful in the end. What goes on is
rarely a big deal in it's day, and it isn't up to us in any event.
Muddy Waters died worrying about if his legacy will live on. It will.
Jackson's? I doubt it. You sell your soul to pop culture and you wind
up being forgotten, IMHO.
R&B
Eric, no one gives him a pass. Most, like you, cling to doubts about
his personal behavior.
That said, it's significant to remember that in the only criminal trial
he faced, he was ACQUITTED on all 11 charges brought forth.
> If he was a doctor, a policeman, or soldier, or teacher, or
> anyone, and was accused of child molestation, being a deadbeat in the
> hundreds of millions, drugs and alcohol abuse, public displays that
> far exceed any definition of weird, this person would not get the same
> consideration. They would be condemmed, despite any good they also
> may have done.
Not if they were acquitted.
> Folks hunger for entertainment. To fill a void in their lives. Even
> when the entertainer is a friggin sleaze, it is ignored, because you
> need entertainment.
Ever gone to a movie?
Ever gone to a concert?
A play?
Ever? In your life?
That people crave entertainment is hardly a vice. It is a natural
human phenomenon.
Humans are wired to feel emotions, and entertainment taps into such
emotions as joy, exhiliration, laughter, tears, love.
And this is a problem in what way?
People who chose to be entertained by MJ did so because they liked his
music. That's all.
> You live vicariously through these people, how
> sad.
Who lived vicariously through MJ?
Name one person.
> To me a deadbeat is a deadbeat. Someone who sleeps with and
> entertains young boys with no other chaparones or adults in presence
> has serious problems,
Agreed.
MJ had no childhood. He was pushed by an abusive father to perform as
early as the age of 3. He was driven to sing and dance and record
music each day until it was time to go to bed at night. In an
interview about 15 years ago, he admitted that his father beat him. He
never had a childhood.
Clearly, he had serious problems.
> Someone who does drugs and alcohol is reckless
> and stupid.
Agreed.
They also, in many cases, have serious psychological disorders that
predispose them to addictive behavior that are beyond their control.
You, as a man of medicine, should know this better than most in this
room.
> Someone who deforms their body the way this guy did, well
> what else can you say.
Self-loathing.
No doubt this was a deeply disturbed man.
> When you do a balance sheet of desireable and
> undesireable, this guy goes off the undesireable scale.
No one's disputing that MJ lived a troubled life.
And no one is disputing that MJ had more psychological problems than
any ten people combined.
But the only people I hear talk about what a "deadbeat" he was are
people who never met him.
> But he
> entertains you, fills a void in your lives, oh well, we can forget all
> the rest.
Do you not suspend reality for 90 minutes when you're in a movie theatre?
That's what entertainment is.
> More saying about you all then anything else. I say good
> riddance. Good friggin riddance.
It says plenty about you that you seem unwilling to suspend reality for
a short while whenever you experience a little entertainment.
But in truth, I'm sure you do every time you go to the movies or watch
a show on TV. You just never thought about it before
> Be happy when we can hear more
> important things on the news. But as long as the average cretin keeps
> tuning in, we will keep on hearing it. It is all about ratings, not
> about substance or human decency.
Like you would have some clue about human decency.
Should I drag out again, for the umpteenth time, the scathing rants you
posted here about me?
Look, as the old saying goes, it's only rock 'n roll, but I like it.
Randy
Lloyd Parsons
memories of music of days gone by.
I've been listening to some Muddy Waters, Jimmy Reed, Howlin' Wolf and
others. I hadn't listened to that in many years. Great stuff. Thanks
to your discussions, it got me to thinking about them and their music
again.
BTW, youtube has a bunch of this stuff on it. Some really good, some
not so good.
Lloyd
The Hammer
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is nothing wrong with going for entertainment per se, perfectly
normal, but when celebrities get a pass for immoral or heinous
behavior that is very wrong. And when people idolize others, there is
something very wrong. Do you give Michael Vick a pass for what he
did to poor defensless animals?. As a long time animal lover, I
can't, Anyone who derives joy from the suffering of others loses the
right to be honored for any talents they might have. When Micheal
Vick dies, the only thing I will remember is what he did to those poor
dogs, his prowess as a football player means nothing. When an
entertainer or sports star as badly tainted as this gets round the
clock coverage when we have very pressing economic and world issues
that really affect our lives. something is very wrong. When people
spend hours glued to the TV set in emotional distress over the death
of MJ, something is also very, very wrong. Because he did a lot of
rotten things, no matter what his talents, the rotten things he did
overwrite the good, which was just being a good singer and dancer.
And this is about MJ, not me and you. If you want to recycle old
quarells and stupidity here, please be my guest. If you believe
that I don't have a clue about human decency, I suggest that all here
take it as 100% unequivocal fact. I ain't biting. You need a
fight, probably others here would enjoy it a whole lot more. I will
keep it on topic. , if you want to deviate , I say go for it, have a
ball. Have better things to do than pick fights with anyone.
Bobby Knight
<GaGolf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with going for entertainment per se, perfectly
>normal, but when celebrities get a pass for immoral or heinous
>behavior that is very wrong. And when people idolize others, there is
>something very wrong. Do you give Michael Vick a pass for what he
>did to poor defensless animals?.
Apples and oranges Eric. There's no comparison between the two, in my
opinion. Yours differs, and that's fine, but your attitude is
supercilious.
BK
The Hammer
> On 2009-06-26 19:53:00 -0400, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:25:42 -0400, "R&B"
> > <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote:
>
> But in most cases, I don't admire artists for their LIVES, I admire
> them for their ART.
>
> And MJ created some that will endure for a very long time.
>
This logic is very scary. If that is the case, what if Hitler was
also a great Impressionist painter. Should we praise him upon his
death and give him extended news coverage because of his great
artistic skills. Should we hang his works in the great museums of the
world? Should his works be studied when one takes Art 101? I
would say that evils he did more than negate any positives. You
cannot seperate the person on stage from off stage. Because if you do
that, you effectively give people a pass.
One of the problems with today is we don't call things for the way
they are. Politicians are corrupt, business people corrupt, everyone
seems to get a pass. Entertainers and sports figures seem to be daily
involved in sex, drug, drinking, or whatever scandals. These are
people we look up to. But we should not look up to them, because many
are bad. You look up to them, continue to buy their records and go
to their concerts, you give tacit approval to the way they are. And
they might just be laughing at us backstage for being so stupid.
There are plenty of starving artists out there, decent hard working
people that just need a break. Maybe those are who we should direct
our monies and admiration to.
The Hammer
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT), The Hammer
>
> >There is nothing wrong with going for entertainment per se, perfectly
> >normal, but when celebrities get a pass for immoral or heinous
> >behavior that is very wrong. And when people idolize others, there is
> >something very wrong. Do you give Michael Vick a pass for what he
> >did to poor defensless animals?.
>
> Apples and oranges Eric. There's no comparison between the two, in my
> opinion. Yours differs, and that's fine, but your attitude is
> supercilious.
>
> BK
In one case, young boys were mistreated, in another, it was animals.
In both cases, the victums were defenseless and easily exploitable.
Anyone that exploits an animal or child is a scumbag. Even if nothing
sexual went on with MJ, it was certainly beyond the bounds of
appropriate.
It is very possible that Vick may become employed again and be the
greatest quarterback ever. He deserves no praise or extended tv time
when he dies. For he exploited defensless creatures and received
amusement from it. How friggin sick. A great example for the nations
youth, many who idolized him.
IMHO, the Vick thing and the MJ think not apples and oranges at all.
Only difference is one party dances and sings, the other throws a
football. Both parites exploited those who did not know better or
could defend themselves. And both parties still admired by many and
seemingly getting a pass,
Bobby Knight
Thanks for finally saying IMHO. That's all it is. You, nor anyone
else is the final arbiter of right and wrong.
BK