Dylan vs. MJ
Hell Toupee
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
"The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
albums than someone like Michael Jackson – a fact that disgusts me,
not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn’t
important), but simply because I don’t see any true genius in
Jackson’s work. It’s pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
Dylan’s work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
years from now as it is today – time has proven that."
FishFood
What? An article comparing Micheal to Dylan? Ok its a blog, but still
the fact that the author should dare...
And yet, it begs a question on the ways popular culture is managed. Its
constraints. You are popular if you don't appear to have anything
significant to say. You are allowed to be popular, providing you are not
seen to provoke thought. At the very least you must say what the system
wants to share.
Someone like Micheal is popular as long as he functions by those rules.
speaking for our control. The way we love what we are told to love. the
ways our tastes are shaped. Someone like Dylan is a reminder of another
time. A survivor from a time when the rules governing popularity were
so much different. You could say he exists, in spite of the rules, or
that enough time has past for us to recognize in him, another function
of culture. Has he the same things to say, or has he changed?
Popular taste brings with it the twin dilemmas of Art and culture. As
culture we love what we know, we can't know what we are not shown. As
Art we seek the unknown, we are provoked to see[k] questions, examples
on thought.
Micheal's contribution isn't just as words or language or music, all of
which have been have expressed at one time or another by so many others,
his Art, his genius was in sharing his psyche, an idea of ourselves when
we were at the mercy of our base nature. His is an Art which can only be
recognized by like minds, like times. What is the outsider makes of his
art, reflects the changing fashions.
Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
Daedalus
>Hell Toupee wrote:
>
>> From a good piece at
>> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
>>
>> "The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
>> albums than someone like Michael Jackson – a fact that disgusts me,
>> not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn’t
>> important), but simply because I don’t see any true genius in
>> Jackson’s work. It’s pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
>> that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
>> Dylan’s work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
>> years from now as it is today – time has proven that."
>
>
>What? An article comparing Micheal to Dylan? Ok its a blog, but still
>the fact that the author should dare...
Dare? Wacko isn't shit on the music totem pole. How "dare" you try and
say he's above comparisons?
And people can post opinions about whatever they like. That's the only
reason we haven't tried to find you and sew your fingers together with
piano wire. Usenet would be better off without your idiotic freeverse
brain dropping our collective IQ.
>
>And yet, BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGH!!!!!!!!!
oops!
Jade
Ancalime
"FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8xBNg.11124$cx...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Hell Toupee wrote:
>
> > From a good piece at
> > http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
> >
> > "The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
> > albums than someone like Michael Jackson – a fact that disgusts me,
> > not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn’t
> > important), but simply because I don’t see any true genius in
> > Jackson’s work. It’s pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
> > that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
> > Dylan’s work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
> > years from now as it is today – time has proven that."
>
>
> What? An article comparing Micheal to Dylan? Ok its a blog, but still
> the fact that the author should dare...
>
> And yet, it begs a question on the ways popular culture is managed. Its
> constraints. You are popular if you don't appear to have anything
> significant to say. You are allowed to be popular, providing you are not
> seen to provoke thought. At the very least you must say what the system
> wants to share.
Michael Jackson had a giant PR machine running which sold his CDs to the public
and kept him in the news. Bob Dylan songs get covered thorough the 70s, 80s, 90s
and 2000s onwards without Bob Dylan even being in the news or in PR campaigns
all the time. That's the difference between being authentic (Dylan) and being a
popstar and corn king (MJ).
>
> Someone like Micheal is popular as long as he functions by those rules.
> speaking for our control. The way we love what we are told to love. the
> ways our tastes are shaped. Someone like Dylan is a reminder of another
> time. A survivor from a time when the rules governing popularity were
> so much different. You could say he exists, in spite of the rules, or
> that enough time has past for us to recognize in him, another function
> of culture. Has he the same things to say, or has he changed?
God are you dense..LOL. Read my explanation above and then you would just
understand that your drivel is completely useless..!
>
> Popular taste brings with it the twin dilemmas of Art and culture. As
> culture we love what we know, we can't know what we are not shown. As
> Art we seek the unknown, we are provoked to see[k] questions, examples
> on thought.
>
> Micheal's contribution isn't just as words or language or music, all of
> which have been have expressed at one time or another by so many others,
> his Art, his genius was in sharing his psyche, an idea of ourselves when
> we were at the mercy of our base nature. His is an Art which can only be
> recognized by like minds, like times. What is the outsider makes of his
> art, reflects the changing fashions.
MJ never shared his psyche with anyone...he just kept himself in the news by
producing "bizarre" headlines in order not to be forgotten in the public. His
music and lyrics are certainly not authentic. If it were, MJs songs would be
covered a lot more and in a wider circle of artists...as it is, just some
artists cover him in a certain genre. R'n'B is just one of many.
>
> Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
> their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
> for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ has not.
Ancalime
Damned I Am
wrote:
>To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ has not.
>
>Ancalime
Also, Michael Jackson is only a co-writer on a FEW of "his" songs. And
he doesn't play ANY instruments (other than his mottled penis, of
course). Therefore he deserves no respect, PERIOD.
Daedalus
Bwahahahahaha!
I had to share yor moronic wonk with AUK and the Dylan fans. Wacko
jacko and Bob Dylan on the same level as artists? Yer just so stupid.
Jade
The King ---> Nessie
news:8xBNg.11124$cx...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net:
> Hell Toupee wrote:
>
>> From a good piece at
>> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
>>
>> "The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
>> albums than someone like Michael Jackson – a fact that disgusts me,
>> not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn’t
>> important), but simply because I don’t see any true genius in
>> Jackson’s work. It’s pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
>> that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
>> Dylan’s work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
>> years from now as it is today – time has proven that."
>
>
> What? An article comparing Micheal to Dylan? Ok its a blog, but still
> the fact that the author should dare...
Yeah, what a horrible insult to Bob Dylan.
> And yet, it begs a question on the ways popular culture is managed.
1. Don't molest little boys.
2. Pay your defense lawyers.
3. Don't hire Mike Tyson's boyfriend to run your business.
FishFood
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:48:04 GMT, FishFood <do...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hell Toupee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From a good piece at
>>>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
>>>
>>>"The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
>>>albums than someone like Michael Jackson – a fact that disgusts me,
>>>not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn’t
>>>important), but simply because I don’t see any true genius in
>>>Jackson’s work. It’s pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
>>>that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
>>>Dylan’s work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
>>>years from now as it is today – time has proven that."
>>
>>
>>What? An article comparing Micheal to Dylan? Ok its a blog, but still
>>the fact that the author should dare...
>
>
> Dare? Wacko isn't shit on the music totem pole. How "dare" you try and
> say he's above comparisons?
You know, you could have asked what i meant, rather than presume i
had in mind, what you seem to believe.
I didn't use the word 'dare' as a signal in the language of conflict,
it wasn't used because i was affronted by the comparison. I was remarking
on the 'boldness' of that comparison. For '...dare', you might read,
'...be so bold'.
If anything the comparison, the mere mention of Michael in the same
context as Dylan, has precisely the opposite connotation. They are
both giants, and thus deserving of the comparison. The point i was
making is that few in our present climate would think to make this
comparison. Few would be so bold.
The comparison allows another point be made on the relative value of
popular culture. Something to do with the changing face of popular
taste and expectation. Dylan the student prince, Michael the king
of pop. How times have changed. Now its bling bling and don't spare
the horses.
> And people can post opinions about whatever they like. That's the only
> reason we haven't tried to find you and sew your fingers together with
> piano wire. Usenet would be better off without your idiotic freeverse
> brain dropping our collective IQ.
Ha ha...
Frogbutt
gui.ntli.net:
Translation please.
--
"Ain’t no man can avoid being born average, but there ain’t no man got to
be common." - Satchel Paige
The King ---> Nessie
news:Xns983CA063353B6fu...@207.14.116.130:
> FishFood <do...@home.com> wrote in news:8xBNg.11124$cx.81@newsfe1-
> gui.ntli.net:
>
>> Micheal's contribution isn't just as words or language or music, all
>> of which have been have expressed at one time or another by so many
> others,
>> his Art, his penis was in sharing his psyche, an idea of ourselves
> when
>> we were at the mercy of our base nature. His is an Art which can only
> be
>> recognized by like minds, like times. What is the outsider makes of
>> his art, reflects the changing fashions.
>>
>> Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
>> their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
>> for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
>>
>
> Translation please.
>
Alan was thinking about Michael's penis from what I gather.
2nz
FishFood wrote:
> Hell Toupee wrote:
>
> > From a good piece at
> > http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
> >
> > "The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
> > not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn't
> > important), but simply because I don't see any true genius in
> > Jackson's work. It's pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
> > that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
> > Dylan's work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
Wacko = Style over substance
Dylan = Substance over style
Frogbutt
news:Xns983C8D5...@204.153.244.170:
Do you think Alan thinks about k00kass' penis too?
FragileWarrior
news:Xns983CA747FFB62fu...@207.14.116.130:
I think he thinks about little boy penis, myself.
FishFood
Or you could say Dylan was promoted by the intelligentsia, when such people
saw popular music as a vehicle for progressive ideas. These days the execs
and the corporate selectors of taste, have the last word. What intelligence
remains in popular music, is content to make its point without attempting
to reach the broad masses. Away from the spot light, where there always
a price to pay for your time in its glare. Away from the spot light where
you can afford to be less circumspect, where you might make your points in
song, and go unnoticed.
You could see Michael as competing in an altogether different arena, since
the demographics have changed considerably since Dylan's heyday. The
economy is with the teen audience, and so we have our pop, mixed to satisfy
unformed tastes, its about fashion, never mind pop's power as influence.
Michael remains a link in an important chain, some can't see the value of.
These days, a suitably contrived 'name' is enough to grant you easy
promotion. Never mind what you say, its about being noticed, being used,
getting selected, bought in enough numbers to say you are successful.
There is so much talent in production, that you don't have to worry about
the song, as statement. And so few bother with that side of the sell. Why
bother with ideas when you can do as well without. [I'm being cynical].
Ideas matter, like experience matters. The ideas you don't yet have a mind
for. The ideas you grow into, which becomes you, which expands your mind,
or mesmerize you. Pop, where the most inexperienced, aided by the many
invisible Spengali, play at dictating tastes. In truth, selection comes
before any desire to fulfill the greater function of Art.
Pop, Fashion before taste, philosophy borrowed from experience, psychology
selected from those with the drive to endure. Mantras we set to a beat.
One love, roll with it, get rich or die trying, rise above it..
>>Someone like Micheal is popular as long as he functions by those rules.
>>speaking for our control. The way we love what we are told to love. the
>>ways our tastes are shaped. Someone like Dylan is a reminder of another
>>time. A survivor from a time when the rules governing popularity were
>>so much different. You could say he exists, in spite of the rules, or
>>that enough time has past for us to recognize in him, another function
>>of culture. Has he the same things to say, or has he changed?
>
>
> God are you dense..LOL. Read my explanation above and then you would just
> understand that your drivel is completely useless..!
>
>>Popular taste brings with it the twin dilemmas of Art and culture. As
>>culture we love what we know, we can't know what we are not shown. As
>>Art we seek the unknown, we are provoked to see[k] questions, examples
>>on thought.
>>
>>Micheal's contribution isn't just as words or language or music, all of
>>which have been have expressed at one time or another by so many others,
>>his Art, his genius was in sharing his psyche, an idea of ourselves when
>>we were at the mercy of our base nature. His is an Art which can only be
>>recognized by like minds, like times. What is the outsider makes of his
>>art, reflects the changing fashions.
>
>
> MJ never shared his psyche with anyone...he just kept himself in the news by
> producing "bizarre" headlines in order not to be forgotten in the public. His
> music and lyrics are certainly not authentic. If it were, MJs songs would be
> covered a lot more and in a wider circle of artists...as it is, just some
> artists cover him in a certain genre. R'n'B is just one of many.
You see what have the experience to see.. you understand what you make
the effort to understand... If all you see is the "bizarre" headlines,
if you really can't see a life or a career, then you won't see to ask
the question why?
>>Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
>>their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
>>for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
>
>
> You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
> songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
>
> To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ has not.
I am not saying Micheal and Dylan are on the same level, or that there
is only the one level. I am saying they compete in different times, to
different generations, with differing expectation. They provide the
culture with a counter balance, when balance is needed, yet so much
harder to come by.
>
> Ancalime
>
FishFood
Or you could say Dylan was promoted by the intelligentsia, when such people
saw popular music as a vehicle for progressive ideas. These days the execs
and the corporate selectors of taste, have the last word. What intelligence
remains in popular music, is content to make its point without attempting
to reach the broad masses. Away from the spot light, where there's always
a price to pay for your time in its glare. Away from the spot light where
you can afford to be less circumspect, where you might make your points in
song, and go unnoticed by culture and history.
You could see Michael as competing in an altogether different arena, since
the demographics have changed considerably since Dylan's heyday. The
economy is with the teen audience, and so we have our pop, mixed to satisfy
unformed tastes, its about fashion, never mind pop's power as influence.
Michael remains a link in an important chain, even when some can't see the
value of role.
These days, a suitably contrived 'name' is enough to grant you easy
promotion. Never mind what you say, its about being noticed, being used,
manipulated, getting selected, bought in enough numbers to say you are
successful. There is so much talent in production, that you don't have to
worry about the song, as statement. And so few bother with that side of
the sell. Why bother with ideas when you can do as well without. [I'm
being cynical].
Ideas matter, like experience matters. The ideas you don't yet have a mind
for. The ideas you grow into, which becomes you, which expands your mind,
or mesmerize you. Pop, where the most inexperienced, aided by the many
invisible Svengali, play at dictating tastes. In truth, selection comes
before any desire to fulfill the greater function of Art.
Pop, Fashion before taste, philosophy borrowed from experience, psychology
selected from those with the drive to endure. Mantras we set to a beat.
One love, roll with it, get rich or die trying, rise above it..
>>Someone like Micheal is popular as long as he functions by those rules.
>>speaking for our control. The way we love what we are told to love. the
>>ways our tastes are shaped. Someone like Dylan is a reminder of another
>>time. A survivor from a time when the rules governing popularity were
>>so much different. You could say he exists, in spite of the rules, or
>>that enough time has past for us to recognize in him, another function
>>of culture. Has he the same things to say, or has he changed?
>
>
> God are you dense..LOL. Read my explanation above and then you would just
> understand that your drivel is completely useless..!
>
>>Popular taste brings with it the twin dilemmas of Art and culture. As
>>culture we love what we know, we can't know what we are not shown. As
>>Art we seek the unknown, we are provoked to see[k] questions, examples
>>on thought.
>>
>>Micheal's contribution isn't just as words or language or music, all of
>>which have been have expressed at one time or another by so many others,
>>his Art, his genius was in sharing his psyche, an idea of ourselves when
>>we were at the mercy of our base nature. His is an Art which can only be
>>recognized by like minds, like times. What is the outsider makes of his
>>art, reflects the changing fashions.
>
>
> MJ never shared his psyche with anyone...he just kept himself in the news by
> producing "bizarre" headlines in order not to be forgotten in the public. His
> music and lyrics are certainly not authentic. If it were, MJs songs would be
> covered a lot more and in a wider circle of artists...as it is, just some
> artists cover him in a certain genre. R'n'B is just one of many.
You see, what have the experience to see.. you understand, what you make
the effort to understand... If all you see is the "bizarre" headlines,
if you really can't see a life or a career, then you won't see to ask the
question why? Headlines having a kind of hidden relation, to the waves
one makes. Mocked by those who can only see the reasons given to mock.
>>Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
>>their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
>>for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
>
>
> You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
> songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
>
> To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ has not.
I am not saying Micheal and Dylan are on the same level, or that there
is only the one level. I am saying they compete in different times, to
different generations, with differing expectation. They provide the
culture with a counter balance, when a balance is sought and is so much
FragileWarrior
news:csGNg.12872$Mh2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:
Double posting boring fuckwad. Please catch COPD from Mooey and moo off.
Roofshadow
"2nz" <U.Betc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wacko = Style over substance
> Dylan = Substance over style
I have tried and tried and tried but I just can't get past Dylan's
horrible voice - but I'd still rather hear him "sing" (if you can call
what Dylan does singing) than Wacko because Dylan isn't a pervy kiddie
diddler.
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
Every Strangers Eyes
Same problem I have with my b/f.
I LOVE Dylan, but he can't stand his voice, so I'm limited to listening
to him when he's not here.
We BOTH despise Wacko though.
FragileWarrior
Hell Toupee
<blather snipped>
Bingo. Successfully trolled alan.
HellT
jack
"FishFood" <do...@home.com> wrote in message
news:csGNg.12872$Mh2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
You obviously know absolutely nothing about Dylan
Ancalime
Intelligent songwriters always find an audience...huge promo campaigns just
outlive themselves. MJs promo campaign became a formula in the pop world to
succeed, but not any longer. as an example, Jessica Simpson's and Paris Hilton's
albums flopped. All these overexposed boy and girl bands and popidol crap was
modeled on MJs press campaigns in the 80s and 90s. These strategy doesn't work
any longer. What stays there is authenticy in music a thing which MJ just
doesn't have.
>
> You could see Michael as competing in an altogether different arena, since
> the demographics have changed considerably since Dylan's heyday. The
> economy is with the teen audience, and so we have our pop, mixed to satisfy
> unformed tastes, its about fashion, never mind pop's power as influence.
> Michael remains a link in an important chain, even when some can't see the
> value of role.
You really have a talent to write long texts and say nothing..just as Michael
jackson's pr campaigns and songwriting:-)))) LOL
>
> These days, a suitably contrived 'name' is enough to grant you easy
> promotion. Never mind what you say, its about being noticed, being used,
> manipulated, getting selected, bought in enough numbers to say you are
> successful. There is so much talent in production, that you don't have to
> worry about the song, as statement. And so few bother with that side of
> the sell. Why bother with ideas when you can do as well without. [I'm
> being cynical].
>
> Ideas matter, like experience matters. The ideas you don't yet have a mind
> for. The ideas you grow into, which becomes you, which expands your mind,
> or mesmerize you. Pop, where the most inexperienced, aided by the many
> invisible Svengali, play at dictating tastes. In truth, selection comes
> before any desire to fulfill the greater function of Art.
>
> Pop, Fashion before taste, philosophy borrowed from experience, psychology
> selected from those with the drive to endure. Mantras we set to a beat.
> One love, roll with it, get rich or die trying, rise above it.
You obviuosly just copy that stuff from somewhere without understanding any of
it..first you say that MJs music and songwriting is relevant in some way and
here you just say the opposite.....
Michael jackson stands for pop music, Bob Dylan stands for songwriting (even
poetry). MJ has never managed to write a poem. His so called poetry book is a
pure joke - it is just crap and I endured myself to read it!
Sorry, but I understood quite well that Michael jackson looks at the shambles of
his career because his music and songwriting are not relevant any longer...the
pop formula is just dead. If you want to have real success for a longer time you
have to have a relevant song back catalog and to be respected as a songwriter.
>
>
> >>Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
> >>their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
> >>for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
> >
> >
> > You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
> > songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
> >
> > To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ has
not.
>
> I am not saying Micheal and Dylan are on the same level, or that there
> is only the one level. I am saying they compete in different times, to
> different generations, with differing expectation. They provide the
> culture with a counter balance, when a balance is sought and is so much
> harder to come by.
As I see it, MJ and his pop clones do a very good job at making themselves
superfluos;-)))
Ancalime
FishFood
This word authenticity again. I take it you mean, the ability to convey a
truth and not just an image. Maybe you've bitten the reality apple and can't
see the place of magic or fantasy. This is not to say Michael doesn't have a
place for authenticity, its just its proportional to his exposure at the fore
of culture and what it allows by way of reality. An artist starting from
nothing, can afford to be as real as the system allows him to be. He can express
himself knowing he will find his 'level' in the culture. An established artist,
one was catapulted to the very forefront of culture on his first attempt, has
to respect the responsibilities which comes with being so high profiled. It will
necessarily mean less authenticity. This is not to say Michael hasn't made the
attempt to convey his truth, or acknowledge our realities, its just done in a
manner compatible with his pop status.
For example you could, if you have a mind to, look at that ghoulish track
'Thriller' for its air of authenticity. Its presentation satisfys the remits
of pop, yet i would say it has managed to convey something else. Or maybe you
are just after the rustic charm, of a man and his harmonica. In which case
you might as well see the gangster rapper for his authenticity.
>>You could see Michael as competing in an altogether different arena, since
>>the demographics have changed considerably since Dylan's heyday. The
>>economy is with the teen audience, and so we have our pop, mixed to satisfy
>>unformed tastes, its about fashion, never mind pop's power as influence.
>>Michael remains a link in an important chain, even when some can't see the
>>value of role.
>
>
> You really have a talent to write long texts and say nothing..just as Michael
> jackson's pr campaigns and songwriting:-)))) LOL
I can laugh too... ;-)
Maybe the fact that you've reach this far, is my way of testing to see if
i can share a meaningful point with you.
>>These days, a suitably contrived 'name' is enough to grant you easy
>>promotion. Never mind what you say, its about being noticed, being used,
>>manipulated, getting selected, bought in enough numbers to say you are
>>successful. There is so much talent in production, that you don't have to
>>worry about the song, as statement. And so few bother with that side of
>>the sell. Why bother with ideas when you can do as well without. [I'm
>>being cynical].
>>
>>Ideas matter, like experience matters. The ideas you don't yet have a mind
>>for. The ideas you grow into, which becomes you, which expands your mind,
>>or mesmerize you. Pop, where the most inexperienced, aided by the many
>>invisible Svengali, play at dictating tastes. In truth, selection comes
>>before any desire to fulfill the greater function of Art.
>>
>>Pop, Fashion before taste, philosophy borrowed from experience, psychology
>>selected from those with the drive to endure. Mantras we set to a beat.
>>One love, roll with it, get rich or die trying, rise above it.
>
>
> You obviuosly just copy that stuff from somewhere without understanding any of
> it..first you say that MJs music and songwriting is relevant in some way and
> here you just say the opposite.....
I guess i ought to take your first point as some kind of begrudging complement
- copied indeed ;)
I am just saying there's a context for Mj's music, i am saying you can't dismiss
pop without seeing its relevance, or its influence. As great as Dylan is, he wont
reach the people Michael reached. That point was acknowledge by the author at
the start of this thread. I am saying someone has to compete on that pop level,
and not simply abandon the great majority without competing for their attention.
Who do we trust with that focus? Importantly who do we truth to influence where
other will follow?
> Michael jackson stands for pop music, Bob Dylan stands for songwriting (even
> poetry). MJ has never managed to write a poem. His so called poetry book is a
> pure joke - it is just crap and I endured myself to read it!
The point isn't one of poetry, its about reaching people, its about
competeing with all the other forces and influences out there, its about a
focal point in the culture, a focal point in time. For all the hits songs
out there, there are few to sustain that focus, or be noticed for any time.
On that level Michael succeeds. I am saying we need this function in history
and culture. Success follows success, this is also the mechanism of influence.
If only it were this simple. I could contradict you with the back catalog of
the other greats, people who were known to every one in their day, whom we've
forgotten. The truth is we have no control of what culture holds as memory.
Who's to say that Michael isn't maintaining his place in history. Through him
other names and dates will be accessed, a trail found to the others lost in
time. How many names do you remember from the last century, [ - i mean the one
before that - ]. Culture can be so fickle that way. We'll remember Michael, the
same way we'll remember Elvis and a relative handful of other names. If not for
their art then for their notoriety. After that there is a faith in a capacity
of the human mind too seek knowledge.
>>>>Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
>>>>their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
>>>>for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
>>>
>>>
>>>You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
>>>songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
>>>
>>>To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ
>>>has not.
>>
>>I am not saying Micheal and Dylan are on the same level, or that there
>>is only the one level. I am saying they compete in different times, to
>>different generations, with differing expectation. They provide the
>>culture with a counter balance, when a balance is sought and is so much
>>harder to come by.
>
>
> As I see it, MJ and his pop clones do a very good job at making themselves
> superfluos;-)))
The music isn't what it was, but one can't deny its influence.... as high minded
as we might be, we need people to keep inventing these joy filled expressions.
We need people to lead with that example. Otherwise there is just the mantra.
> Ancalime
>
SneakyP
news:cdSNg.26112$G72....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
OMMMMMMM
This isn't the sixties anymore Anal.
You're not in college writing English Comp. papers anymore, where you try
to fill in as many words as possible to create a 15 page thesis for a
grade. Ghad, how does anyone read your rubbish without getting a
headache?
I am convinced your professors passed you just so they wouldn't have to
read your papers anymore.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Ancalime
Magic, fantasy and authenticity go well together as long as the artist really
means it. Magic isn't produced with a stylish video, PR around the idol a lá MJ
but it is created in the listener's head! It is utter nonsense to believe that
so called established artists can't produce something special. However, Michael
Jackson has failed greatly with gigantic statues floating down the river Thames
and other PR brouhaha to capture anyone's imagination!
>
> For example you could, if you have a mind to, look at that ghoulish track
> 'Thriller' for its air of authenticity. Its presentation satisfys the remits
> of pop, yet i would say it has managed to convey something else. Or maybe you
> are just after the rustic charm, of a man and his harmonica. In which case
> you might as well see the gangster rapper for his authenticity.
What has "Thriller" got to do with authenticity? It was created by John Landis
who produced the movie "American Werewolf" and after that, except "Blues
Brothers", never produced something original again. Your cliché "man and his
harmonica" just proves that you dom't understand anything of this subject.
Dylan's songs are often best when they are covered by others , e.g. Joan Beaz et
al. The fact that OTHER musicians cover Dylan's songs says something about their
relevance and authenticity up until now.....
I never heard a known version of "Thriller" anywhere..if it was covered, it was
of no significance to anyone else. should you tell something.
>
>
> >>You could see Michael as competing in an altogether different arena, since
> >>the demographics have changed considerably since Dylan's heyday. The
> >>economy is with the teen audience, and so we have our pop, mixed to satisfy
> >>unformed tastes, its about fashion, never mind pop's power as influence.
> >>Michael remains a link in an important chain, even when some can't see the
> >>value of role.
> >
> >
> > You really have a talent to write long texts and say nothing..just as
Michael
> > jackson's pr campaigns and songwriting:-)))) LOL
>
> I can laugh too... ;-)
>
> Maybe the fact that you've reach this far, is my way of testing to see if
> i can share a meaningful point with you.
God, are you always this boring??? You have not made a relevant point at
all..that's all there is to say! If you take that for a compliment, you are
welcome.
If pop wants to be relevant, it has to develop, Michael Jackson never did that,
many others who started doing pop music do something else now. Is that so
difficult to understand?
>
> > Michael jackson stands for pop music, Bob Dylan stands for songwriting (even
> > poetry). MJ has never managed to write a poem. His so called poetry book is
a
> > pure joke - it is just crap and I endured myself to read it!
>
> The point isn't one of poetry, its about reaching people, its about
> competeing with all the other forces and influences out there, its about a
> focal point in the culture, a focal point in time. For all the hits songs
> out there, there are few to sustain that focus, or be noticed for any time.
> On that level Michael succeeds. I am saying we need this function in history
> and culture. Success follows success, this is also the mechanism of influence.
No, it doesn't. success does not automatically follow success where have you got
that from? Oh, probably too much Michael Jackson mindless PR campaign
brainwash:-)) LOL
There are many other hit songs besides MJs Thriller and Off the Wall...Have you
ever bothered to listen to anything else but Michael Jackson's music? Small
wonder that you have such a limited horizon.......
Michael jackson has never ventured into Jazz, Classical, Modern or Ancient Music
(just as examples). His musical knowledge isn't big enough from what is known
(any announced but never realised projects do not count!) and he has never
shown any tendency to grow....many others do exactly that (including Dylan) and
that is why they are still relevant and authentical today.
What I remember from last century's music is may well much more than you
do....starting with composers Heinrich Schütz and J.S. Bach...:-)))) Just tell
me how many advertising singles have been made from Bach's musical pieces...it
will shred the relevance of Michael Jackson's music greatly! LOL
>
>
> >>>>Artists like Dylan and Michael exist almost in spite of the rules,
> >>>>their function we don't truly recognize until we see the greater need
> >>>>for what they create, the focus which they allow us to share.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You still haven't understood the difference between true authenticy in
> >>>songwriting and a giant soulless PR campaign portraying a popstar.
> >>>
> >>>To put it in a nutshell: Dylan has respect as a singer/songwriter, MJ
> >>>has not.
> >>
> >>I am not saying Micheal and Dylan are on the same level, or that there
> >>is only the one level. I am saying they compete in different times, to
> >>different generations, with differing expectation. They provide the
> >>culture with a counter balance, when a balance is sought and is so much
> >>harder to come by.
> >
> >
> > As I see it, MJ and his pop clones do a very good job at making themselves
> > superfluos;-)))
>
> The music isn't what it was, but one can't deny its influence.... as high
minded
> as we might be, we need people to keep inventing these joy filled expressions.
> We need people to lead with that example. Otherwise there is just the mantra.
>
You obviuosly never bothered to look up what a mantra means..it is a personal
view of life for an individual person which is given out by a teacher in the
practice of Yoga ("Union") to his/her student. It is an important part of the
right way to live!
Well, to cut a long story short, of course there will always be people working
as musicians, artists etc. but Michael Jackson is far less important in general
as his PR campaigns made it to his fans......
Ancalime
Roofshadow
Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot
"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
Ann,I find it interesting that English is your *second* language,& yet you
always manage to express a view with *much* greater clarity than
Messr.Jones.Goes to show a muddled mind will express itself badly in *any*
language,while clarity of thought will always shine thru' the limitations of
the written word.Oh,& you also only use words you know the meaning of!(And
again,your vocabulary is waaaaay better than Alan's!)
cheers
Artie
Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot
"Roofshadow" <Roofsha...@spamtrap.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Roofshadow2004-E11...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I have the answer for that,Roofy.I used to feel the same way.
Listen to Dylan's compositions sung by other people.(The Byrds,the Mitchell
Trio,Crosby, Stills & Nash,Judy Collins etc.)Especially good is Joan
Baez,who was his girlfriend in the 60s.She sings his stuff like an
angel.When you get his songs sung by people who really can sing,then you
appreciate what a great songwriter he is.
cheers
Artie
Roofshadow
Thanks Artie - I'll have to check them out!
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
jack
"Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot" <ferall...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:4509ec3c$0$22358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Roofshadow" <Roofsha...@spamtrap.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Roofshadow2004-E11...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <1158094547.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "2nz" <U.Betc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wacko = Style over substance
>>> Dylan = Substance over style
>>
>> I have tried and tried and tried but I just can't get past Dylan's
>> horrible voice - but I'd still rather hear him "sing" (if you can call
>> what Dylan does singing) than Wacko because Dylan isn't a pervy kiddie
>> diddler.
>>
>> --
>> Roofshadow
>>
>> AUK FNG
>
> I have the answer for that,Roofy.I used to feel the same way.
> Listen to Dylan's compositions sung by other people.(The Byrds,the
> Mitchell Trio,Crosby, Stills & Nash,Judy Collins etc.)
Got to disagree. Listen to Mr Tambourine Man by the Byrds, a very sterile
version, only Dylan can do Dylan.
Especially good is Joan
> Baez,who was his girlfriend in the 60s
Hardly a girlfriend, more an occasional fuck buddy.
Ancalime
"Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot" <ferall...@optusnet.com.au> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:4509e575$0$28952$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >
> > "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:cdSNg.26112$G72....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >> Ancalime wrote:
> >>
> >> > "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > news:csGNg.12872$Mh2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> >> >
> >> >>Ancalime wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>"FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >>>news:8xBNg.11124$cx...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Hell Toupee wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>From a good piece at
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/11/150552.php
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>"The truth is, for all of his appeal, Dylan will always sell fewer
> >> >>>>>not because of any charges against Jackson (musically, that isn't
> >> >>>>>important), but simply because I don't see any true genius in
> >> >>>>>Jackson's work. It's pure pop, and while he may have had a few hits
> >> >>>>>that appealed for a brief time, they are fleeting and forgettable.
> >> >>>>>Dylan's work has a timeless quality that will be as relevant twenty
Well, thanks for the compliment...as I am a freelance translator, both
English/German and German/English, such cool feedback is nice to have! alan
should consult www.leo.org to strengthen his word power..or a Merriam Webster
Dictionary...ROTFL.
Have you noticed? alan jones or FishFood (WTH does he think he is?) never posted
again in this thread. Seems to be fed up with having presented himself as an
idiot once more LOL:-)))
BTW, we'll have fish for lunch today!! :-)))))))
Ancalime
Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot
"jack" <jacke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%LpOg.19521$wo3....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Artemis,the Polyglot Sexpot" <ferall...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
> message news:4509ec3c$0$22358$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Roofshadow" <Roofsha...@spamtrap.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Roofshadow2004-E11...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>> In article <1158094547.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "2nz" <U.Betc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wacko = Style over substance
>>>> Dylan = Substance over style
>>>
>>> I have tried and tried and tried but I just can't get past Dylan's
>>> horrible voice - but I'd still rather hear him "sing" (if you can call
>>> what Dylan does singing) than Wacko because Dylan isn't a pervy kiddie
>>> diddler.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Roofshadow
>>>
>>> AUK FNG
>>
>> I have the answer for that,Roofy.I used to feel the same way.
>> Listen to Dylan's compositions sung by other people.(The Byrds,the
>> Mitchell Trio,Crosby, Stills & Nash,Judy Collins etc.)
>
> Got to disagree. Listen to Mr Tambourine Man by the Byrds, a very sterile
> version, only Dylan can do Dylan.
>
>
> Especially good is Joan
>> Baez,who was his girlfriend in the 60s
>
> Hardly a girlfriend, more an occasional fuck buddy.
It seemed from the recent Scorcese documentary they were pretty tight
romantically until his star began eclipsing hers,but I don't really know or
care how intense(or not) their relationship was.The bottomline was she was
an enthusiastic witness to him composing his greatest songs,(composed on a
typewriter,interestingly enough)and she sang his songs with passion &
respect.She has a wonderful voice,& she could really work some magic on some
of his tunes.If you're interested in Dylan but can't get into his music
because his voice isn't exactly the most mellifluous instrument in the
world,seeking out those who did some interesting interpretations of his work
is the next best thing.Then you can understand why he is so impt in the
history of pop music & why wacko will be a footnote in that history.At the
end of the day,it's *songs* that mean a lot to people,not facile PR images
,glitter gloves or damn moonwalks.To bastardize Shakespeare,"the song's the
thing."
cheers
Artie
>>
>
>
Roofshadow
"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I never took German so about all I know is "guten tag" (and I probably
spelled that wrong) and "auf viedersein" (definitely spelled that wrong!)
You're miles ahead of me and I really admire that!
alan
> should consult www.leo.org to strengthen his word power..or a Merriam Webster
> Dictionary...ROTFL.
He's not bright enough (or too drug addled) to put them to proper use so
what's the point?
> Have you noticed? alan jones or FishFood (WTH does he think he is?) never
> posted
> again in this thread. Seems to be fed up with having presented himself as an
> idiot once more LOL:-)))
Or he's down at the pub getting smashed again.
> BTW, we'll have fish for lunch today!! :-)))))))
Just don't think about anal jones or you'll lose your appetite!
--
Roofshadow
AUK FNG
SneakyP
news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
> gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
> to capture anyone's imagination!
::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
Ancalime
"SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
> "Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
>
> However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
> > gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
> > to capture anyone's imagination!
>
> ::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a point.
However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why they used such
tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no taste, knowledge of history
or style whatsoever! ;-)
OT: The best Hitler jokes are made by Jewish comedians anyway.....Ever seen
Hitler's Spring by Mel Brooks? Brilliant stuff!
Anne
FishFood
> "SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
>
>>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
>>
>> However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
>>
>>>gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
>>>to capture anyone's imagination!
>>
>>::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
>
>
> Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a point.
> However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why they used such
> tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no taste, knowledge of history
> or style whatsoever! ;-)
I guess you were expected to think... instead of having everything
explained to you.
This was about HIStory, playing with the iconography which comes and goes
with history. This was about the events of that time, the fall of the iron
curtain, followed by the fall of all those eastern European statutes.
This was Michael borrowing from the images which were all over the news
back then. This was '95 with a nod to '35. I only wish the promo film,
which proceeded the launch of the HIStory, had a little bit of Chaplin
about it, this would have made the point. The same album also has Michael
singing Chaplin's bitter sweet - Smile.
Ancalime
> Ancalime wrote:
> > "SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
> >
> >>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
> >>
> >> However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
> >>
> >>>gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
> >>>to capture anyone's imagination!
> >>
> >>::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
> >
> >
> > Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a point.
> > However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why they used such
> > tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no taste, knowledge of
history
> > or style whatsoever! ;-)
>
> I guess you were expected to think... instead of having everything
> explained to you.
BWAHAHHAAHAA..the only one who needs some more knowledge of history and fascist
propaganda which is going with it, are you, alan. LOL
>
> This was about HIStory, playing with the iconography which comes and goes
> with history. This was about the events of that time, the fall of the iron
> curtain, followed by the fall of all those eastern European statutes.
> This was Michael borrowing from the images which were all over the news
> back then. This was '95 with a nod to '35. I only wish the promo film,
> which proceeded the launch of the HIStory, had a little bit of Chaplin
> about it, this would have made the point. The same album also has Michael
> singing Chaplin's bitter sweet - Smile.
That is by far the dumbest, silly and most useless "explanation" that was ever
given to explain a silly PR campaign for a pop star. MJ simply doesn't know what
iconography, irony and politics are, if he did he never would have "instructed"
such a dumb PR campaign in the first place. By the way it is "statues" not
"statutes"...do you ever think about what you write at all?
Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin either. If he
ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The only thing that PR
campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A thing which is shared by almost
all dictators in history and nowadays! HIStory - alone this shows what Michael
Jackson has in his head - nothing but hot air;-)))))) And he is tasteless,
without style and integrity..thanks for proving my point.
Ancalime
FishFood
> "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3IQOg.27640$SH2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>Ancalime wrote:
>>
>>>"SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
>>>>
>>>>However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
>>>>>to capture anyone's imagination!
>>>>
>>>>::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
>>>
>>>
>>>Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a point.
>>>However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why they used such
>>>tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no taste, knowledge of
>>>history or style whatsoever! ;-)
>>
>>I guess you were expected to think... instead of having everything
>>explained to you.
>
>
> BWAHAHHAAHAA..the only one who needs some more knowledge of history and fascist
> propaganda which is going with it, are you, alan. LOL
Well that takes the biscuit. Propaganda works best on those who can't see it,
as your presence here demonstrates. Its all way too subtle for you, too clever
by half. You have no imagination for the truth.
>>This was about HIStory, playing with the iconography which comes and goes
>>with history. This was about the events of that time, the fall of the iron
>>curtain, followed by the fall of all those eastern European statutes.
>>This was Michael borrowing from the images which were all over the news
>>back then. This was '95 with a nod to '35. I only wish the promo film,
>>which proceeded the launch of the HIStory, had a little bit of Chaplin
>>about it, this would have made the point. The same album also has Michael
>>singing Chaplin's bitter sweet - Smile.
>
>
> That is by far the dumbest, silly and most useless "explanation" that was
> ever given to explain a silly PR campaign for a pop star. MJ simply doesn't
> know what iconography, irony and politics are, if he did he never would
> have "instructed" such a dumb PR campaign in the first place. By the way
> it is "statues" not "statutes"...do you ever think about what you write at all?
You might as well lay the same charges against Madonna, since both stars
know how to use the ideas of the moment. Its the business of pop to connect
with the ways people feel, to make these connections to the culture at large.
In some notable cases you'll even find these connections to history. Pop as
expression, being in my opinion more powerful than pop as fashion or dictate.
You can't remain a pop star for any time without knowing how to connect with
people on this other level of hopes and fears.
Yet all you see is the most superficial. Its why you would never make it
in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in pop.
> Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin either. If he
> ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The only thing that PR
> campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A thing which is shared by almost
> all dictators in history and nowadays! HIStory - alone this shows what Michael
> Jackson has in his head - nothing but hot air;-)))))) And he is tasteless,
> without style and integrity..thanks for proving my point.
This just show how little you know or understand about Michael Jackson.
Are you honestly saying Michael, who's an ardent admirer of Charlie
Chaplin would not of seen one of his most seminal works? Your trouble
is you want to believe every negative thing said about Mj. You have a
media construction as the basis for your opinions, which gets in the
way of you seeing Micheal as a thoughtful individual.
> Ancalime
>
Pastor Pants
news:SYZOg.37664$DB3....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:
> Ancalime wrote:
>> "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:3IQOg.27640$SH2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>>Ancalime wrote:
>>>
>>>>"SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>>news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR
>>>>>>brouhaha to capture anyone's imagination!
>>>>>
>>>>>::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a
>>>>point. However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why
>>>>they used such tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no
>>>>taste, knowledge of history or style whatsoever! ;-)
>>>
>>>I guess you were expected to think... instead of having everything
>>>explained to you.
>>
>>
>> BWAHAHHAAHAA..the only one who needs some more knowledge of history
>> and fascist propaganda which is going with it, are you, alan. LOL
>
> Well that takes the biscuit. Propaganda works best on those who can't
> see it, as your presence here demonstrates. Its all way too subtle for
> you, too clever by half. You have no imagination for the truth.
Unbridled fantasy hardly qualifies as truth.
>>>This was about HIStory, playing with the iconography which comes and
>>>goes with history. This was about the events of that time, the fall
>>>of the iron curtain, followed by the fall of all those eastern
>>>European statutes. This was Michael borrowing from the images which
>>>were all over the news back then. This was '95 with a nod to '35. I
>>>only wish the promo film, which proceeded the launch of the HIStory,
>>>had a little bit of Chaplin about it, this would have made the point.
>>>The same album also has Michael singing Chaplin's bitter sweet -
>>>Smile.
>>
>>
>> That is by far the dumbest, silly and most useless "explanation" that
>> was ever given to explain a silly PR campaign for a pop star. MJ
>> simply doesn't know what iconography, irony and politics are, if he
>> did he never would have "instructed" such a dumb PR campaign in the
>> first place. By the way it is "statues" not "statutes"...do you ever
>> think about what you write at all?
>
> You might as well lay the same charges against Madonna, since both
> stars know how to use the ideas of the moment. Its the business of pop
> to connect with the ways people feel, to make these connections to the
> culture at large. In some notable cases you'll even find these
> connections to history. Pop as expression, being in my opinion more
> powerful than pop as fashion or dictate. You can't remain a pop star
> for any time without knowing how to connect with people on this other
> level of hopes and fears.
Madonna was blessed by nature with the proper equipment to "connect".
Michael Jackson has to improvise.
> Yet all you see is the most superficial. Its why you would never make
> it in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in
> pop.
Pop is short-term, fickle and inherently disposable.
>> Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin
>> either. If he ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The
>> only thing that PR campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A
>> thing which is shared by almost all dictators in history and
>> nowadays! HIStory - alone this shows what Michael Jackson has in his
>> head - nothing but hot air;-)))))) And he is tasteless, without style
>> and integrity..thanks for proving my point.
>
> This just show how little you know or understand about Michael
> Jackson. Are you honestly saying Michael, who's an ardent admirer of
> Charlie Chaplin would not of seen one of his most seminal works? Your
> trouble is you want to believe every negative thing said about Mj. You
> have a media construction as the basis for your opinions, which gets
> in the way of you seeing Micheal as a thoughtful individual.
Michael Jackson does not have the capacity to think.
>> Ancalime
>>
>
Ancalime
> Ancalime wrote:
> > "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:3IQOg.27640$SH2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >>Ancalime wrote:
> >>
> >>>"SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >>>news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>However, Michael Jackson has failed greatly with
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>gigantic statues floating down the river Thames and other PR brouhaha
> >>>>>to capture anyone's imagination!
> >>>>
> >>>>::Imagines a german brown floating down the sewer::
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Those who claimed that MJ used fascist images for PR reasons, had a point.
> >>>However, it was never explained properly by MJs PR team why they used such
> >>>tasteless imagery. It just proved IMO that MJ has no taste, knowledge of
> >>>history or style whatsoever! ;-)
> >>
> >>I guess you were expected to think... instead of having everything
> >>explained to you.
> >
> >
> > BWAHAHHAAHAA..the only one who needs some more knowledge of history and
fascist
> > propaganda which is going with it, are you, alan. LOL
>
> Well that takes the biscuit. Propaganda works best on those who can't see it,
> as your presence here demonstrates. Its all way too subtle for you, too clever
> by half. You have no imagination for the truth.
So, MJs PR campaign isn't propaganda to you, right? You are wrong in the 9nth
degree - it is. Propaganda to try to sell as many CDs as possible and to a big
ego. That is the truth about that silly Michael Jackson PR campaign. Just
because Jackson simply has no clue about being subtle!
>
>
> >>This was about HIStory, playing with the iconography which comes and goes
> >>with history. This was about the events of that time, the fall of the iron
> >>curtain, followed by the fall of all those eastern European statutes.
> >>This was Michael borrowing from the images which were all over the news
> >>back then. This was '95 with a nod to '35. I only wish the promo film,
> >>which proceeded the launch of the HIStory, had a little bit of Chaplin
> >>about it, this would have made the point. The same album also has Michael
> >>singing Chaplin's bitter sweet - Smile.
> >
> >
> > That is by far the dumbest, silly and most useless "explanation" that was
> > ever given to explain a silly PR campaign for a pop star. MJ simply doesn't
> > know what iconography, irony and politics are, if he did he never would
> > have "instructed" such a dumb PR campaign in the first place. By the way
> > it is "statues" not "statutes"...do you ever think about what you write at
all?
>
> You might as well lay the same charges against Madonna, since both stars
> know how to use the ideas of the moment. Its the business of pop to connect
> with the ways people feel, to make these connections to the culture at large.
> In some notable cases you'll even find these connections to history. Pop as
> expression, being in my opinion more powerful than pop as fashion or dictate.
> You can't remain a pop star for any time without knowing how to connect with
> people on this other level of hopes and fears.
What's got Madonna to do with MJs silly PR campaign? Madonna has got her own
silly PR campaigns to worry about! :-) That Kabbala stuff she does without
really understanding the core of it is silly too!
Pop is dead and people who don't outgrow this format - will never learn anything
new.
>
> Yet all you see is the most superficial. Its why you would never make it
> in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in pop.
Pop IS superficial! Michael Jackson is superficial because he just is a pop
musician and cannot become something more. At least until now he never has shown
any signs of becoming something more. Therefore he is dated.
>
> > Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin either. If he
> > ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The only thing that PR
> > campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A thing which is shared by
almost
> > all dictators in history and nowadays! HIStory - alone this shows what
Michael
> > Jackson has in his head - nothing but hot air;-)))))) And he is tasteless,
> > without style and integrity..thanks for proving my point.
>
> This just show how little you know or understand about Michael Jackson.
> Are you honestly saying Michael, who's an ardent admirer of Charlie
> Chaplin would not of seen one of his most seminal works? Your trouble
> is you want to believe every negative thing said about Mj. You have a
> media construction as the basis for your opinions, which gets in the
> way of you seeing Micheal as a thoughtful individual.
Just because Michael jackson said in a years old and scripted interview that he
admires Charlie Chaplin you go and believe it? And even more that he understands
his work? LOL That is a really good joke indeed. If MJ had understood anything
about Chaplin's movies, he never would have shown his big egotistical statue
floating down the river.....LOL
The public and MJs fans are to believe in a complete PR construct controlled by
MJs team. You just forget that this construct is hollow, dated and empty. That
HIStory and also the Invincible PR campaign proved it. Sony pulled back from the
financing because they had already lost a lot of money on the HIStory double CD,
so when Invincible came out they just pulled the plug because the album IS weak.
There is also no conspiracy, just MJs stubbornness to accept that he is dated,
his music is dated and that he has to grow up as a person - but he just doesn't
do anything about it. There is no substance left to it. MJ isn't a thoughtful
individual at all. If it were otherwise it would lay in MJs best interest to
show it to the public, but there is nothing......and it has been for years now.
Ancalime
FishFood
Even Madonna has her off days. IMO the principle difference Artists
like Madonna and Mj, is the culture which looks to take them seriously,
or dismiss them as ephemeral. From the get go, the culture wanted to
invest meaning in what Madonna produced, this investment then goes on
to feed the artist. This however isn't true of all artist. Treated like
yesterday's newspaper, all they see is a momentary chance. A brief time
in the sun, before returning to obscurity. You could say the success
an artist aspires to, is determined by the basis on which that success
their is measured.
Chart position, Sales, Grammies, or the next thing.... its a real
surprise that for all the awards going there aren't any prominent
awards for the content of pop. You'll get awards for the package,
but rarely the content. Little is said on the artist merit of a song
or the inventive ideas captured in a production. This it seems is
left for the market to decide.
>>Yet all you see is the most superficial. Its why you would never make
>>it in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in
>>pop.
>
>
> Pop is short-term, fickle and inherently disposable.
Pop is the stuff of language and thus thought, its the staple diet of
the masses. Pop is expression, influence and control. Pop is a record
of its times, psychology and philosophy, goals and aspirations.
Occasionally you'll find Pop as art, very occasionally. For the most
part it is a fickle fashion, as those who don't yet know what they like,
follow where it allowed to leads. Which is why pop should be treated
seriously, with more regard for those who consume it...
>>>Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin
>>>either. If he ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The
>>>only thing that PR campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A
>>>thing which is shared by almost all dictators in history and
>>>nowadays! HIStory - alone this shows what Michael Jackson has in his
>>>head - nothing but hot air;-)))))) And he is tasteless, without style
>>>and integrity..thanks for proving my point.
>>
>>This just show how little you know or understand about Michael
>>Jackson. Are you honestly saying Michael, who's an ardent admirer of
>>Charlie Chaplin would not of seen one of his most seminal works? Your
>>trouble is you want to believe every negative thing said about Mj. You
>>have a media construction as the basis for your opinions, which gets
>>in the way of you seeing Micheal as a thoughtful individual.
>
>
> Michael Jackson does not have the capacity to think.
Its a fool who can't allow in others what he allows for himself.
>>>Ancalime
>>>
>>
>
Cazzawaw owns the redemption!
Ancalime wrote:
> "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:SYZOg.37664$DB3....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> > Ancalime wrote:
> > > "FishFood" <do...@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:3IQOg.27640$SH2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> > >>Ancalime wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"SneakyP" <48um...@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > >>>news:Xns983FC6E12743848...@127.0.0.1...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>"Ancalime" <guen...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >>>>news:ee9oap$76e$03$1...@news.t-online.com:
> > > Michael Jackson has never seen "The Great Dictator" by Chaplin either. If he
> > > ever did, he certainly hasn't understood it at all. The only thing that PR
> > > campaign showed was Michael Jackson's big ego. A thing which is shared by
> almost all dictators in history and nowadays!
> > This just show how little you know or understand about Michael Jackson.
> > Are you honestly saying Michael, who's an ardent admirer of Charlie
> > Chaplin would not of seen one of his most seminal works?
> Just because Michael jackson said in a years old and scripted interview that he
> admires Charlie Chaplin you go and believe it?
Of course wacko admires the Little Tramp! Chaplin liked 'em young too.
He had to marry 16 year old Mildred Harris because they thought she
was pregnant. Lita Grey was 16 too. His last wife was 18. He was 54
(wacko's not that far off.).
I wonder will wacko follow in Chaplin's footsteps and pick himself up a
(female) childbride to make him look normal while he continues his
predilection for young boys.
FragileWarrior
R6
> You might as well lay the same charges against Madonna, since both stars
> know how to use the ideas of the moment. Its the business of pop to connect
> with the ways people feel, to make these connections to the culture at large.
> In some notable cases you'll even find these connections to history. Pop as
> expression, being in my opinion more powerful than pop as fashion or dictate.
> You can't remain a pop star for any time without knowing how to connect with
> people on this other level of hopes and fears.
>
> Yet all you see is the most superficial.
Because we all know just how deep pop music is. It's *pop* music, you
imbecile. It is by definition superficial.
>Its why you would never make it
> in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in pop.
You know so much about pop I guess you *would* make it in the biz.
For God's sake, anal, stop being such a twit.
R6
> On 16 Sep 2006, FishFood <do...@home.com> posted some
>> Well that takes the biscuit. Propaganda works best on those who can't
>> see it, as your presence here demonstrates. Its all way too subtle for
>> you, too clever by half. You have no imagination for the truth.
>
> Unbridled fantasy hardly qualifies as truth.
Exactly.
>> Yet all you see is the most superficial. Its why you would never make
>> it in pop, its why you certainly would last for any length of time in
>> pop.
>
> Pop is short-term, fickle and inherently disposable.
Exactly. Alan is such a f'loon.
2nz
He's just restin till he heals the world and saves all the unhappy
peoples.