Jackson's involvement in 'Thriller' is widely exaggerated. He did not do the
choreography (Michael Peters did) or write the screenplay (he is credited
with "co-writing" it with John Landis, who directed *American Werewolf In
London*).

Jackson didn't write the song 'Thriller' either, it was written by Rod
Temperton.

Ian



2009/7/8 [email protected] <[email protected]>

>
> MJ, well he was good at the start, with the rest of the family behind
> him.  There is no doubt that the Jackson 5 wrote and performed sopme
> fine music.  And yes the vidoe for the single Thriller was the first
> of it's kind so i gues the label inovative is deserved.  Ummm that is
> about it though, The Jackson 5 and the video for Thriller, not that
> much to get worked up about I fear, at least if we are trying to cal
> MJ a prolific, constant, great artist.
>
> On 8 July, 13:51, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Rather than derailing Molly's thread on beauty, here's a new one
> continuing
> > my discussion with Slip on Michael Jackson and art. Of course, anyone
> else
> > is welcome to contribute.
> >
> > 2009/7/8 Slip Disc <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is pertinent but only in the
> > > context of that era and Jackson in this era.  Equally they crossed the
> > > line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling spectacle.
> >
> > Each to their own. If crotch-grabbing/thrusting is your bag, then more
> power
> > to you! If you think that the moonwalk was art -- rather than a
> fun/cheesy
> > gimmick -- then that's okay too.
> >
> > I found nothing Jackson produced to be "mind-bloggling". He was labelled
> the
> > "King of Pop", but pop -- by its very nature -- is asinine, disposable,
> and
> > commercial... with due exception given to the genres of indie pop and
> C86.
> > See:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop
> >
> > Of course
> >
> > > if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such
> > > extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, I, as well as others,
> > > would concede to your view.
> >
> > I can only assume this is a joke -- often hard to tell if we're not
> > face-to-face -- or you have had very limited exposure to music. I am
> happy
> > to talk about music and could offer up examples for longer than you'd
> likely
> > care to hear them. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll
> give
> > you a single, and I think comparable example, of a male solo writer and
> > performer: David Bowie.
> >
> > > I personally have no interest, never had,
> > > in the Jackson attraction.  I am only motivated by your lack of
> > > recognition of the innovation,
> >
> > Innovation is a serious word to throw around in music; I suggest you
> proceed
> > cautiously with the examples I am looking forward to you offering up. I'd
> be
> > particularly cautious when referring to Michael Jackson's contributions,
> > however, because, as I am sure you know, he did very little himself...
> thus
> > any credit for innovation will be, at the very best, diluted.
> >
> > > Art is something of a misnomer
> > > in that people will and are paying thousands of dollars for
> > > contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an artist styled in
> > > Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage".  So in that sense, your
> > > view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form is reflective of your
> > > lack of understanding what "art" is all about.
> >
> > Mend your tone a little, Slip.
> >
> > Ian
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to