Ok, I started this with my comment about Jacko while replying to Molly on the "beauty" thread, so I suppose I'd better clarify my own position.
Jacko came to mind because the memorial thing was going on on TV in the same room as I was writing. For the record, I don't agree with most of the hype we've been innundated with since his death, and a lot of what was said yesterday - Al Sharpton comes particularly to mind - was way over the top. But, in that sense, his death and what has been going on since then simply mirrors much of his life (... the man in the mirror ...:-)). I zapped into CNN briefly before the memorial service started and there were arial pictures of a dark limousine/ hearse speeding along a Californian highway - I was immediately reminded of similar pictures from a few years ago with Jackson being driven to the courthouse to hear the verdict in his abuse case. I agree with Ian that there have been many other figures in rock and pop in the past fifty years who have been more innovative and artistically talented than Jacko. The example of Bowie is one I would wholeheartedly endorse - I could add many others; from the Beatles, through Pink Floyd, Lou Reed/Velvet Underground, U2, Oasis, etc., etc. I would also cheerfully argue that Quincy Jones was the greater genius behind "Thriller" (the parts of which I liked most being Eddie van Halen's guitar solo on "Beat It" and "Human Nature"). And yet, "Thriller" was one of those rock/pop events which achieve a synergetic greatness every now and again, maybe by just being the right artist/sound/album/whatever at the right time. Like Dylan, perhaps, in the early sixties, or Sergeant Pepper, or Dark Side of the Moon, or The Joshua Tree, or, even, Norah Jones' "Come Away With Me." And Jackson - at his best (and with "Thriller" he WAS at his best) - was an talented, extremely professional musician. As for the comparison with Caravaggio, I was referring to the fact that, with time, the individual faults, idiosyncrasies, even life- stories of artists fade away until only their work endures (or fails to). Comparision of artistic genius usually is a pretty futile occupation anyway. Personally I will never forget the day I wandered into San Luigi dei Francese in Rome shortly after moving there in 1984, knowing nothing of the place and being astounded by the three monumental canvasses of Caravaggio on the theme of St. Matthew. I somehow doubt that Jackson's music will have the same kind of effect in 400 years time! Francis On 8 Jul., 18:11, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Creativity is a greatly misused term. Do we, as humans create life by > the copulative act? Do we create a car out of nothing? Do we create > the language we use? Do we create the specific vibratory scales used > in music? Philosophically, and actually, in almost every instance, it > is but a parody of previous works.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Music > > This has always been recognized and for centuries composers would copy > other people’s works with the recognition that such copying was not > only acceptable, but that doing so was recognition of the greatness of > that copied! > The research of the true origin of different pieces of music is > extensive and surprising if one takes the time to study it. From > Bartok to Bach, what today would be litigated as copyright > infringement, was used as common and accepted > practice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_Minor > Having played much by both in orchestras and bands, I can claim some > expertise in music. Also, having ‘created’ original music, I can only > say that what was played stands on the shoulders of all that came > before me. > Further, when it comes to today’s music, we immediately move into a > multimedia environment. This muddies the waters a bit in the expansion > of elements used. > > I started out as a big musical snob, rejecting rock & roll as being > crass, shallow and of no value at all. Then framing the Beatles in a > similar mold. I felt that only the classics were worthy. Then, little > by little, I listened to and finally became a big fan of the former. > My previous prejudice was based on a lifetime of playing and studying > the classics along with a view from a position of entitlement and > superiority. Silly, no? > > Quickly returning to the topic of creativity, I enjoyed much of MJs > works…when I first saw and heard ‘Remember the Time’, I was > fascinated! The same for his black and white futuristic works with his > sister. Without belaboring the point, all large productions today are > a collaborative effort. So, the synthesis is the result of the work of > many even though it centers often around an individual. About > everything in life is this way. > > As to the term ‘pop’, it is a shortened form of popular. As I have > earlier admitted to here, it is all too easy to eschew such > presentations. Judgments, opinions and personal ‘tastes’ are just that… > and in the larger scope of things have little to no value at all. > Shall we reject things because they are popular? ‘Tis a very very easy > thing to do! > > My final word is but yet another admonition about corporate media. I > seriously doubt if the current topic about MJ would have arisen or at > least reached the proportions and ‘seriousness’ it has without the > financial interests of today’s mass media’s manufacturing of consent, > consumerism and compliance. > > On Jul 8, 7:48 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Exposing the substructure of a super star does not strip down the > > talent rating to zero. Producers, writers, choreographers must have > > "talent" to work with. Great movies are not great because of a > > handful of actors but of course you have to have the right actors for > > the presentation. There are billions of people in the annals of > > artistic history and some stand out as "icons". I think what your > > missing is that you just can't replace Micheal Jackson with someone > > off the street and create the same iconic image. The idol shows of > > late are proof of that. There has to be some talent there to work > > with. It really doesn't matter who wrote the song, created the > > costuming and choreographed the show, they didn't sing the song or > > dance the dance. Some people think Ozzy Osborn is iconic, I think > > he's a dirt bag. Despite all your picking apart Micheal Jackson Made > > it happen. You can argue with millions of fans if you want and as I > > said earlier, I have no personal interest nor own any MJ peripherals > > but I do think he was a talented artist. My opinion of course! > > > On Jul 8, 9:13 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Actually... the Jackson 5 didn't write their own songs, but The Jacksons > > > did. It may sound pedantic, but there are two very distinct eras to their > > > music (the good and the bad, in my opinion). > > > > As the Jackson 5, they made their name as a covers band, playing songs by > > > Sly & The Family Stone, Smoky Robinson & The Miracles, etc. After they > > > moved > > > to the Motown label, their songs were written and produced by Gordy, > > > Richards, Mizell, and Perren (aka The Corporation). This was the 'ABC' era > > > Jackson 5. Later on Hal Davis took over as writer. During this time -- > > > which > > > was their peak in my opinion -- they didn't even play their own > > > instruments. > > > > After Motown dropped them, they did begin to write their own songs. > > > However, > > > they were now more famous as television stars; I think the quality of the > > > songs had really dropped off. This was not the Jackson 5; they were now > > > The > > > Jacksons. > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
