|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Sept 16, 2023 17:09:29 GMT
Not surprising. the thing about Michael didn't get as much praise for off the wall is a lie. off the wall was everywhere. this been talked about for ages and pretty much been talked about before. even Michael spoke up about it.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 16, 2023 17:13:23 GMT
The Disco Sucks movement in itself has to be one of the most shameful acts of racism in modern music history? In retrospect you have these white over the hill DJ’s and VJ’s saying things like “It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously” and “It was a joke, an off the cuff remark that people misunderstood” etc.
The "Disco Sucks" movement definitely had racist and homophobic undertones IMO. And they can miss me with the "it was a joke" excuse now that in the hindsight it doesn't look so cool any more. They had a full on riot and record burning event nazi style. Some "joke". Totally unhinged behavior and for what? Because other people liked a different type of music?
Oh MJ was absolutely on the receiving end of this type of "journalism". One of Wenner's pals (another RS writer), Dave Marsh wrote a full book in 1985 called "Trapped: Michael Jackson and the Crossover Dream". I haven't read the book itself, but it is one of three works analyzed in Susan Woodword's work "Otherness and Power: Michael Jackson and His Media Critics". The book is vicious and basically ranting about how sad it is that MJ has missed the opportunity to use his fame and popularity to be more political and more meaningful. Basically bemusing why he is not more like Springsteen, politically conscious. Also declaring he is on the decline (mind you, it was published in 1985, LOL). Maybe because he didn't fucking care to be like Springsteen? I will state this: no single artist has the power to change the world, but if there is one artist, whose art and music was capable of speaking to all nations and races and sexes and cultures and bring them together, it was MJ. So why the hell would he want to be like Springsteen whose main demographic and the people he reaches is a lot more narrow?
The problem with these type of critics is narrow-mindedness. They think there's only one purpose of art and that's the purpose they determined for it: that it should always be lyrics centric and "deep" and political and all that. And the music, of course always has to be the type that appeals to the white male audience (ie. rock). They never understood MJ as an artist. Never. That his goal was never to be Springsteen, his goal was to bring escapism and joy to people, and he did that very successfully and all races, nations, ages, sexes etc were highly receptive of the escapism he offered and that's not something to look down on. Music can be as much a spiritual experience as an intellectual one and the former is not inferior to the latter. In fact, I think the former is actually superior, because it is more universal while lyrics centric songs are usually very specific to a place, a time, a political situation/leaning etc. This is not to say, of course, that MJ didn't have meaningful and important lyrics. I think he is just often not given credit for them. Maybe, exactly because of the attitude we see in Wenner's interview: lyrics by a black artist simply can't be taken as seriously as lyrics by a white rock god. But why exactly is writing a song about humans polluting the Earth and climate change in 1995 less important than Springsteen writing about blue collar unemployment in the USA in the 80s? Why is Springsteen writing about AIDS in the 90s more important than MJ writing about police brutality and social injustice in TDCAU? (Actually MJ's topics seem more ahead of their time and definitely more universal to me than Springsteen's which were often very much of their time...)
And then Wenner's judment of good and intelligent lyrics also seem very arbitrary. I mean things like putting Mick Jagger up as an example of a great, intellectual lyricist, a "rock and roll philosopher", while scoffing at Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder and Joni Mitchell...
100% 👍🏼
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 16, 2023 17:15:37 GMT
You can feel it in the air…… Classic 90’s tune!
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 16, 2023 18:51:12 GMT
Re. their Queen hate. I just noticed that the same guy who wrote that vicious book about MJ, Dave Marsh wrote this also rather vicious critique about Queen's A Day at the Races' album:
Freddie Mercury as a "passable pop voice", my god! Not to mention the rest of the drivel, of course.
But this shows how it is actually a very small group of people with a very uniform and predictable taste given way too much power as cultural gatekeepers just because they had a magazine.
I mean, that’s just laughable. Freddie was one of the greatest singers and performers of our time. These people needed to be outed for all of their fuckery.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 16, 2023 18:54:59 GMT
Not surprising. the thing about Michael didn't get as much praise for off the wall is a lie. off the wall was everywhere. this been talked about for ages and pretty much been talked about before. even Michael spoke up about it. Off The Wall is a pivotal album in popular music and these shills should have given it and MJ their blessed approval. They were able to circumvent black music/MJ of the times via the Disco Sucks movement. In fact, they didn’t even circumvent it, they flat out rejected it. Wankers!
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Sept 16, 2023 21:05:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cloudbuster on Sept 16, 2023 21:57:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Sept 16, 2023 23:10:21 GMT
Terrible person, just like the guy who did Janet wrong after Super Bowl.
I guess I wouldn’t feel too bad about giving my Rolling Stone covers book away someday now lol I got it for free years ago and kept it cause of mjs covers, and even remember buying one with an mj poster in the 90s
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 17, 2023 2:32:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by butterflies2 on Sept 17, 2023 2:51:36 GMT
Good riddance!
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 17, 2023 3:32:55 GMT
Re. their Queen hate. I just noticed that the same guy who wrote that vicious book about MJ, Dave Marsh wrote this also rather vicious critique about Queen's A Day at the Races' album:
Freddie Mercury as a "passable pop voice", my god! Not to mention the rest of the drivel, of course.
But this shows how it is actually a very small group of people with a very uniform and predictable taste given way too much power as cultural gatekeepers just because they had a magazine.
I mean, that’s just laughable. Freddie was one of the greatest singers and performers of our time. These people needed to be outed for all of their fuckery. They also seem to have a problem with commercial success, at least if it's not one of their darlings achieving it: "Queen is the least experimental of such groups, probably because their commercial aspirations are the most brazen." I know critics often brought up against MJ too his open aspiration for commercial success as if it's something devaluing the art. Actually both MJ and Queen are the epitome of lasting legacies, legacies that stand the test of time. Probably more so than those Rolling Stone darlings. And I don't think either of their artistic output suffered because of "commercial aspirations", so that in itself shouldn't be used as a point of criticism. Whether the music good or bad doesn't necessarily depend on whether the artist has commercial aspirations. Guess what? Classic composers also had commercial aspirations. Some wrote music for rich people to satisfy their demands, to make money, to make a living etc. Classic painters too. That doesn't say anything about whether the piece is good or bad. And the irony is that MJ's commercial aspirations were exactly in answer of the racism he felt from the like of Rolling Stone, as he put it in that handwritten note. His motivation for commercial success wasn't greed. It was to "show them". To show it those people who say things like "black people don't sell"... I find it ironic how RS can refuse to give a black artist a cover because "black people don't sell", but then this same magazine criticizes artists for "commercial aspirations"... Dave Marsh wrote a whole book bashing MJ for failing to be this political, Springsteen like figure in black who would be the symbol of abolishing racism. All the while his magazine being so racist against him and other black artists. These type of "liberals" definitely only practice equality in theory, they don't like it when it's put in practice. And MJ's way of putting it in practice wasn't becoming the black Springsteen (thankfully), it was to show them that they were wrong when they said "black artists don't sell". But then, lo and behold, that was their problem. That he was "too commercial". Ironic, isn't it? (Of course, Springsteen wasn't "too commercial" when he had a blockbuster hit with Born in the U.S.A...)
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 17, 2023 3:46:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Sept 17, 2023 6:25:05 GMT
"The board administrates the selections for the Hall of Fame museum. The vote to remove Wenner had just one dissenter, reportedly Bruce Springsteen manager Jon Landau." Why am I not surprised? Rolling Stone was basically ran like a Springsteen fan magazine in the 80s...
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 17, 2023 23:50:06 GMT
I mean, that’s just laughable. Freddie was one of the greatest singers and performers of our time. These people needed to be outed for all of their fuckery. They also seem to have a problem with commercial success, at least if it's not one of their darlings achieving it: "Queen is the least experimental of such groups, probably because their commercial aspirations are the most brazen." I know critics often brought up against MJ too his open aspiration for commercial success as if it's something devaluing the art. Actually both MJ and Queen are the epitome of lasting legacies, legacies that stand the test of time. Probably more so than those Rolling Stone darlings. And I don't think either of their artistic output suffered because of "commercial aspirations", so that in itself shouldn't be used as a point of criticism. Whether the music good or bad doesn't necessarily depend on whether the artist has commercial aspirations. Guess what? Classic composers also had commercial aspirations. Some wrote music for rich people to satisfy their demands, to make money, to make a living etc. Classic painters too. That doesn't say anything about whether the piece is good or bad. And the irony is that MJ's commercial aspirations were exactly in answer of the racism he felt from the like of Rolling Stone, as he put it in that handwritten note. His motivation for commercial success wasn't greed. It was to "show them". To show it those people who say things like "black people don't sell"... I find it ironic how RS can refuse to give a black artist a cover because "black people don't sell", but then this same magazine criticizes artists for "commercial aspirations"... Dave Marsh wrote a whole book bashing MJ for failing to be this political, Springsteen like figure in black who would be the symbol of abolishing racism. All the while his magazine being so racist against him and other black artists. These type of "liberals" definitely only practice equality in theory, they don't like it when it's put in practice. And MJ's way of putting it in practice wasn't becoming the black Springsteen (thankfully), it was to show them that they were wrong when they said "black artists don't sell". But then, lo and behold, that was their problem. That he was "too commercial". Ironic, isn't it? (Of course, Springsteen wasn't "too commercial" when he had a blockbuster hit with Born in the U.S.A...) I think when you have artists as universally and as unanimously loved as MJ and Queen it causes massive jealousy and resentment. The thing about MJ & Freddie Mercury is that it is undeniable how talented they were so you get vindictive little pricks, I mean critics who spend years and decades chipping away at them through insults and pointing out the slightest little things in order to knock them down a peg or two in order to make them feel good about themselves and their faves. Also you have The Beatles -who I love- that were essentially a teenybopper 3 chord band that girls screamed at and you couldn’t even hear if they were any good live, held up as indisputable geniuses that changed popular culture forever and can do no wrong. Now, I love them, but…… Why? What’s the difference between The Beatles and MJ? Well, MJ had the bigger impact over a wider demographic in virtually every corner of the world, was an incredible singer and live entertainer. The Beatles lifted peoples spirits in America after the Kennedy assassination, were 4 average guys and who played the game. They were also hugely influenced by the likes of Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holy, Elvis but more importantly, they were white! And according to the founder of Rolling Stone, that’s simply the fundamental difference. Now, I love The Beatles albums and I love Lennon but, there was nothing about The Beatles/Lennon that was far greater than MJ imho. Nothing! They were great -for me- but MJ was greater. Overall he was far greater in just about everything. But they couldn’t possibly allow that could they? Also, Freddie was Indian, Gay and highly eccentric, which I would imagine for these white, below average guys who couldn’t play an instrument or were failed musicians made them feel even more insecure about themselves. It comes down to a few simple things; racist attitudes and pathetic insecure pettiness. Same as the Disco Sucks movement.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Sept 17, 2023 23:54:41 GMT
"The board administrates the selections for the Hall of Fame museum. The vote to remove Wenner had just one dissenter, reportedly Bruce Springsteen manager Jon Landau." Why am I not surprised? Rolling Stone was basically ran like a Springsteen fan magazine in the 80s... I’m delighted to see this cunt removed!
|
|