RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
Dr. Pepper said it was "da draahgs" that stopped his heart. Findings were confirmed by his assistant Gumby.
9.0.4 Suite-Samsung Chronos 7 laptop(17")-12GB RAM-Samsung 840 series SSD(250GB)-iPad2-Maschine-TouchAble-SaffirePro24-Saffire6USB-Komplete Audio 6-Axiom25-PCR300-Nocturn-LaunchPad-QuNeo-QuNexus
miTunes
miTunes
-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
@ spikee
Cheers for the thoughtful reply brah. We are in agreement on a few for sure.
But, you give too much credence to the legal system which is only as infallible as the people working it. At the high-stakes level we are dealing with it is even more corrupt and not a place that is to be taken at face value. Even if you're innocent, be very afraid. Lots of injustice in the justice system. To simply "weather" the legal system implies it as fair and equal. It is not.
R.Kelly pee'd on a minor.... on video!. And had sex with her. The two cases are not even close. With Kelly, it wasn't alledged. You really think Kelly simply weathered the system that wanted to prosecute him? He did his best and spent millions to stay out of jail, so i don't get where yer going with that.
Understand that Tom Sneddon is someone you're defending here. You don't know you are but you are. Corrupt over-zealous men with political power are the worst of the bunch. Crooks with carte blanche to be crooks. They've put a lot of innocent people to jail or their deaths. Tom Sneddon has spear-headed every allegation thrown at MJ and had a personal vendetta. That's one man who solely brought "all" the charges to MJ. One man. He was the justice you refer. Look up Sneddon, not MJ. I suppose myself and "all" the juror's who acquitted MJ had unrealistic expectations.
This sums up nicely. There are a few links at the bottom too.
'Mad Dog' Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson
Dan Abrams, MSNBC’s top lawyer, assured the Jackson jurors that they had returned the right verdict. On the law, they were beyond reproach. He then proceeded to ream them out: “what do you think Michael Jackson was doing in bed with these kids? What would you do if a man in your neighborhood did the same (which is?)? Wouldn’t you call the cops? Confess to being star-struck!
The jurors had dared to apply the law to the facts of the case; they refused to convict Jackson based on assumptions and inferences. And that enraged the chattering class—from jurists to journalists, from politicians to pundits. Even more preposterous—so preposterous it elicited unflattering comparisons to OJ’s enablers—“the jurors failed to ‘get past’ the testimony of the accuser’s mother and … convict Jackson.” In other words, the jury had the temerity to toss the testimony of a professional grifter and a liar. In so doing, they admirably fulfilled what remains of the institution’s mandate: jurors are not supposed to “get past” the testimony of a swindler—or a family of them, for that matter.
In the majestic tradition of Anglo-Saxon law, juries were once trusted to forestall government tyranny. Thomas Jefferson considered “trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Lamentably, the Founders’ Blackstonian view of the jury as a bulwark against government abuses has been supplanted by the notion of the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the “greater good.”
Such Benthamism has allowed zealous prosecutors (and their graceless handmaidens) to discard a defendant’s rights. Thomas Sneddon’s nickname says a lot about the Santa Barbara DA’s métier and mood. And “Mad Dog” definitely breached his prosecutorial obligations. Of his “Rights Of Englishmen” (due process, habeas corpus, the right to counsel; no crime without intent, no self incrimination, no retroactive law), Jackson was most egregiously deprived of a prosecutor who pursues truth and justice; tries the defendant in the courtroom, not in the media (as Sneddon did), makes sure there is strong evidence against the defendant before indicting him (Sneddon didn’t); refrains from bringing the full power of government against an individual citizen, and avoids piling on charges as a means of gaining a conviction (ditto).
The DA kicked off the proceedings by depriving Jackson of a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing compels the prosecution to lay out the evidence—the basis of its case, if you will—to the satisfaction of a judge. “In California, prosecutors may initiate a criminal action either by filing a complaint, or by obtaining a grand jury indictment,” explains FindLaw’s Jonna M Spilbor. “The overwhelming majority of felony cases in California are done by complaint.” But once a grand jury indictment is filed, the defendant loses his right to a preliminary hearing, and, with it, the opportunity to prepare for trial.
Glaring discrepancies exist between the initial felony complaint and the indictment, chief of which is that the conspiracy count is conspicuously absent from the complaint. Was the count that carried the stiffest sentence conjured in the process of throwing at Jackson everything but the kitchen sink? Was conspiracy a “clever” prosecutorial afterthought? Or did the "complaining witnesses" suddenly “recall” they had been abducted and imprisoned at Neverland?
All of the above, it would seem. The accuser’s mother, the key witness in the state’s case, “remembered” late in the game that the family had been imprisoned in Neverland. Pesky things that they are, the facts, however, indicate that her kidnapping and “coerced confinement” included a trip to a beauty parlor, where she was depilated of bodily bristles; dental appointments, shopping sprees, and dinners out—all on Jackson's dime. By admitting this woman’s testimony, Sneddon, then, suborned perjury. As to sonny’s incarceration: the accuser testified he didn’t want to leave, “Because I was having lots of fun.”
Furthermore, the nature of the conspiracy must, by law, be described in the indictment (it isn’t) and the co-conspirators named (they aren’t). “Defendants need to know who they supposedly conspired with, and what they supposedly conspired to do—and to know it when the indictment is issued, not later,” noted FindLaw’s Jonna M. Spilbor.
Last I looked, Ex post facto law was unconstitutional. But with Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville’s blessing, a law was passed to allow Sneddon to parade Jackson’s prior accusers into court. By admitting into evidence prior alleged acts committed by Jackson—acts never proven in a court of law—Sneddon hoped to demonstrate “Jackson's pattern of behavior.” But, as FindLaw’s Julie Hilden warned, “Evidence of prior criminal behavior that does not result in a conviction is a classic example of prejudicial evidence.” Indeed, that Jackson paid off an accuser is no proof of his guilt, yet it was treated as such. Absent convictions, these charges ought to have been ruled inadmissible. In any case, who’s to say that the housemaids (sons in tow) who mulcted Jackson of millions were not flaunting their preferred “pattern of behavior”: extortion?
When it comes to popular and popularizing crusades like child sexual abuse, contemporary America has sustained the spirit of 1692 Salem. Merely accusing someone of sexually abusing a child is enough to strip him of his rights. And convictions can be obtained with no proof or evidence of guilt other than the word of the accuser. Thus it mattered not that the evidence in Jackson’s case consisted solely of the say-so of a family of transients and tramps: the accuser’s mother—and coach—is a felon in her own right. From welfare fraud she graduated to extortion, chiseling JCPenny of $150,000 for alleged… sex abuse (they paid. Does that mean they’re guilty?). If a history of criminality was not sufficient to render Mrs. Arivizo unfit to testify in a court of law, the odd ideation she exhibited ought to have done the trick: Arivizo testified Jackson was going to eliminate her family by dispatching them in a hot air balloon!
Described as really smart and cunning, Arivizo’s five-foot-seven, hirsute “child” (the accuser) was every bit as acquisitive (a shoplifter) and imaginative (a liar) as mom. He and his brother had helped buttress their mother’s assorted bilking schemes. Or as a wise juror put it, the lad lied habitually because that’s all he knew. That Jackson plied him with “Jesus Juice,” and licked his forehead is something only the shakedown clan witnessed. The alleged molestation occurred, if to go by tiny’s timeline, after Martin Bashir’s devastating exposé (“Living with Michael Jackson”) aired, and while the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services was searching Neverland, sicced on Jackson by busybody, Gloria Allred. A subsequent raid (carried out by 75 lawmen!) on Jackson’s home produced some legal porn, proving only that, as weird as he is, Jackson’s carnality, at least, is shared by millions of Americans.
Expecting a prosecutorial touchdown, Countdown With Keith Olbermann aired a rather cruel segment called “Prepping for the Pokey,” in which Olbermann pondered how Jackson would fit his prosthetic proboscis in jail. The only man (Jon Stewart disappointed) to have distinguished himself from the pack was Geraldo Rivera. The Fox News reporter conceded Jackson’s conduct was creepy and said as much (as did I). But he understood that creepy is not necessarily criminal. Hooray for Geraldo.
And hooray for the twelve wise men and women who stood between Michael Jackson and a parlous prosecutor.
©2005 Ilana Mercer
Free Market News Network
July 5 http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/pu ... ditid1=182
or http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/06/14/589/53892
http://freedomforall.net/jackson-juries ... d-abusers/
Cheers for the thoughtful reply brah. We are in agreement on a few for sure.
But, you give too much credence to the legal system which is only as infallible as the people working it. At the high-stakes level we are dealing with it is even more corrupt and not a place that is to be taken at face value. Even if you're innocent, be very afraid. Lots of injustice in the justice system. To simply "weather" the legal system implies it as fair and equal. It is not.
R.Kelly pee'd on a minor.... on video!. And had sex with her. The two cases are not even close. With Kelly, it wasn't alledged. You really think Kelly simply weathered the system that wanted to prosecute him? He did his best and spent millions to stay out of jail, so i don't get where yer going with that.
Understand that Tom Sneddon is someone you're defending here. You don't know you are but you are. Corrupt over-zealous men with political power are the worst of the bunch. Crooks with carte blanche to be crooks. They've put a lot of innocent people to jail or their deaths. Tom Sneddon has spear-headed every allegation thrown at MJ and had a personal vendetta. That's one man who solely brought "all" the charges to MJ. One man. He was the justice you refer. Look up Sneddon, not MJ. I suppose myself and "all" the juror's who acquitted MJ had unrealistic expectations.
This sums up nicely. There are a few links at the bottom too.
'Mad Dog' Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson
Dan Abrams, MSNBC’s top lawyer, assured the Jackson jurors that they had returned the right verdict. On the law, they were beyond reproach. He then proceeded to ream them out: “what do you think Michael Jackson was doing in bed with these kids? What would you do if a man in your neighborhood did the same (which is?)? Wouldn’t you call the cops? Confess to being star-struck!
The jurors had dared to apply the law to the facts of the case; they refused to convict Jackson based on assumptions and inferences. And that enraged the chattering class—from jurists to journalists, from politicians to pundits. Even more preposterous—so preposterous it elicited unflattering comparisons to OJ’s enablers—“the jurors failed to ‘get past’ the testimony of the accuser’s mother and … convict Jackson.” In other words, the jury had the temerity to toss the testimony of a professional grifter and a liar. In so doing, they admirably fulfilled what remains of the institution’s mandate: jurors are not supposed to “get past” the testimony of a swindler—or a family of them, for that matter.
In the majestic tradition of Anglo-Saxon law, juries were once trusted to forestall government tyranny. Thomas Jefferson considered “trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Lamentably, the Founders’ Blackstonian view of the jury as a bulwark against government abuses has been supplanted by the notion of the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the “greater good.”
Such Benthamism has allowed zealous prosecutors (and their graceless handmaidens) to discard a defendant’s rights. Thomas Sneddon’s nickname says a lot about the Santa Barbara DA’s métier and mood. And “Mad Dog” definitely breached his prosecutorial obligations. Of his “Rights Of Englishmen” (due process, habeas corpus, the right to counsel; no crime without intent, no self incrimination, no retroactive law), Jackson was most egregiously deprived of a prosecutor who pursues truth and justice; tries the defendant in the courtroom, not in the media (as Sneddon did), makes sure there is strong evidence against the defendant before indicting him (Sneddon didn’t); refrains from bringing the full power of government against an individual citizen, and avoids piling on charges as a means of gaining a conviction (ditto).
The DA kicked off the proceedings by depriving Jackson of a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing compels the prosecution to lay out the evidence—the basis of its case, if you will—to the satisfaction of a judge. “In California, prosecutors may initiate a criminal action either by filing a complaint, or by obtaining a grand jury indictment,” explains FindLaw’s Jonna M Spilbor. “The overwhelming majority of felony cases in California are done by complaint.” But once a grand jury indictment is filed, the defendant loses his right to a preliminary hearing, and, with it, the opportunity to prepare for trial.
Glaring discrepancies exist between the initial felony complaint and the indictment, chief of which is that the conspiracy count is conspicuously absent from the complaint. Was the count that carried the stiffest sentence conjured in the process of throwing at Jackson everything but the kitchen sink? Was conspiracy a “clever” prosecutorial afterthought? Or did the "complaining witnesses" suddenly “recall” they had been abducted and imprisoned at Neverland?
All of the above, it would seem. The accuser’s mother, the key witness in the state’s case, “remembered” late in the game that the family had been imprisoned in Neverland. Pesky things that they are, the facts, however, indicate that her kidnapping and “coerced confinement” included a trip to a beauty parlor, where she was depilated of bodily bristles; dental appointments, shopping sprees, and dinners out—all on Jackson's dime. By admitting this woman’s testimony, Sneddon, then, suborned perjury. As to sonny’s incarceration: the accuser testified he didn’t want to leave, “Because I was having lots of fun.”
Furthermore, the nature of the conspiracy must, by law, be described in the indictment (it isn’t) and the co-conspirators named (they aren’t). “Defendants need to know who they supposedly conspired with, and what they supposedly conspired to do—and to know it when the indictment is issued, not later,” noted FindLaw’s Jonna M. Spilbor.
Last I looked, Ex post facto law was unconstitutional. But with Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville’s blessing, a law was passed to allow Sneddon to parade Jackson’s prior accusers into court. By admitting into evidence prior alleged acts committed by Jackson—acts never proven in a court of law—Sneddon hoped to demonstrate “Jackson's pattern of behavior.” But, as FindLaw’s Julie Hilden warned, “Evidence of prior criminal behavior that does not result in a conviction is a classic example of prejudicial evidence.” Indeed, that Jackson paid off an accuser is no proof of his guilt, yet it was treated as such. Absent convictions, these charges ought to have been ruled inadmissible. In any case, who’s to say that the housemaids (sons in tow) who mulcted Jackson of millions were not flaunting their preferred “pattern of behavior”: extortion?
When it comes to popular and popularizing crusades like child sexual abuse, contemporary America has sustained the spirit of 1692 Salem. Merely accusing someone of sexually abusing a child is enough to strip him of his rights. And convictions can be obtained with no proof or evidence of guilt other than the word of the accuser. Thus it mattered not that the evidence in Jackson’s case consisted solely of the say-so of a family of transients and tramps: the accuser’s mother—and coach—is a felon in her own right. From welfare fraud she graduated to extortion, chiseling JCPenny of $150,000 for alleged… sex abuse (they paid. Does that mean they’re guilty?). If a history of criminality was not sufficient to render Mrs. Arivizo unfit to testify in a court of law, the odd ideation she exhibited ought to have done the trick: Arivizo testified Jackson was going to eliminate her family by dispatching them in a hot air balloon!
Described as really smart and cunning, Arivizo’s five-foot-seven, hirsute “child” (the accuser) was every bit as acquisitive (a shoplifter) and imaginative (a liar) as mom. He and his brother had helped buttress their mother’s assorted bilking schemes. Or as a wise juror put it, the lad lied habitually because that’s all he knew. That Jackson plied him with “Jesus Juice,” and licked his forehead is something only the shakedown clan witnessed. The alleged molestation occurred, if to go by tiny’s timeline, after Martin Bashir’s devastating exposé (“Living with Michael Jackson”) aired, and while the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services was searching Neverland, sicced on Jackson by busybody, Gloria Allred. A subsequent raid (carried out by 75 lawmen!) on Jackson’s home produced some legal porn, proving only that, as weird as he is, Jackson’s carnality, at least, is shared by millions of Americans.
Expecting a prosecutorial touchdown, Countdown With Keith Olbermann aired a rather cruel segment called “Prepping for the Pokey,” in which Olbermann pondered how Jackson would fit his prosthetic proboscis in jail. The only man (Jon Stewart disappointed) to have distinguished himself from the pack was Geraldo Rivera. The Fox News reporter conceded Jackson’s conduct was creepy and said as much (as did I). But he understood that creepy is not necessarily criminal. Hooray for Geraldo.
And hooray for the twelve wise men and women who stood between Michael Jackson and a parlous prosecutor.
©2005 Ilana Mercer
Free Market News Network
July 5 http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/pu ... ditid1=182
or http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/06/14/589/53892
http://freedomforall.net/jackson-juries ... d-abusers/
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
you're putting words into my mouth and picking a fight. it was not a loaded question, I'm being respectful and you're vilifying me.aqua_tek wrote:tone I think you're getting yourself hung up on the whole traditional thing where if someone doesn't play an instrument and / or know music theory, they can't be considered a talented musician.Tone Deft wrote:KK what skills did MJ bring to the table when making tunes? he sings and writes lyrics, did he have anything else to offer? I don't think I've ever seen him play an instrument or talk nuts and bolts about music.
strange, usually when great people in the music world die I kinda wig out, with this one I feel nothing.
respect to the fans though, just because I don't get it doesn't make it wrong.
Mj was a vocalist and a damn good one. He didn't have the theory background perhaps but he did have the voice and the presence.
To each their own I guess.
with his amazing pitch and lifelong industry experience I'm sure he at least played piano and probably drums. he just knew better to hire any-freaking warm body on the planet he wanted to play on his albums. dunno what your hangup is with theory or what that has to do with anything. I'm sure all that came natural to him, maybe he spoke it, maybe he didn't. from KK's stories it sounds like he played his cards close to his chest. after the abuse he endured I can understand why.guys like Burt Bacharach, Neil Diamond, John Lennon/Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, how many times have their songs been used as part of the pop culture canon of music? calling MJ the King Of Pop? I dunno. anyway, history has deemed it so, can't argue with that I'm just saying that there are other highly prolific sources of pop culture music.
all of the videos I've seen of him live, he's lip syncing. shameful. if I want to see dancing I'll go see Cats FFS. I'm being very facetious, but you get my drift. a musician performs music, often playing live he was just a (amazing and revolutionary) dancer.
the people that can jump on any instrument, write lyrics, sing and play frontman for a kick ass band... those guys are studs that I truly admire. sh1t, Sinatra didn't even write the songs he wrote and he's a legend. MJ helped create a phenomenal catalog of music, one of the best ever (Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Mozart, Tiesto...) MJ attracted talent and was responsible for making that catalog, totally impressive.
it's my opinion, allow me to have it.
I play the 'playing an instrument' card on this forum because at its most base, boring unimaginative level Live can let any f*ckwit kid make (awful) music and call themselves a musician or producer. please understand why I do that, it's a reality check. it's attitude but I know better than to categorically write people off. there are 'mouse jockies' in this forum that make amazing tunes way beyond what I'll ever do, I know that, I stay out of their way, show respect and wait to learn more from them.
...but that has NOTHING to do with what I've posted.
I'm really not trying to dis the guy. I stopped paying attention to him when he got weird, basically after his hair caught fire in that Pepsi commercial. I was a new wave teenager back then, not really into R&B. surely in time I'll realize that there are albums of his I NEED and I'll go through an MJ phase. but for literally the last 20 years he's been pop culture noise to me, tabloid annoyances, rumors, bad TV and not a single good song for decades, IMO. I wrote earlier in this thread that it will be interesting in 10 years time when people talk about his music first and the drama second, or third or not at all. I look forward to that.
I have enjoyed hearing his music on youtube and TV for the last 24 hours. it's rare when someone of his stature passes, the entire freaking planet is in mourning.
let's not argue.
you'll loose. muahuahuahuahua.been watching this guy, he does amazing acoustic renditions of songs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXCyISQSdE <-- Billy Jean on acoustic.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
stringtapper
- Posts: 6321
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
Tone Deft wrote:sh1t, Sinatra didn't even write the songs he wrote and he's a legend.
I'm guessing this is a typo, but Sinatra was never touted as a writer. The Tin Pan Alley tradition always had clear lines in the sand separating the crooners from the songwriters (a few exceptions notwithstanding).
Hey TD I know I'm being a knit-picking classical music snob prick, but this list, not even taking quality into account, but based on sheer quantity of output looks kind of silly. Ludwig and Wolfie's "catalogs" are to those others' in the list as the sun is to Pluto.Tone Deft wrote:MJ helped create a phenomenal catalog of music, one of the best ever (Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Mozart, Tiesto...) MJ attracted talent and was responsible for making that catalog, totally impressive.
Unsound Designer
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
oh christ, here we go...
ummm this is how threads go off into the weeds, you're talking about the delivery of my argument and not the content. is there really a point to be made there? now we're onto Mozart and Sinatra??? I get your points but watch in other threads what happens when people do this, it gets u-g-l-y. I'm sensing that you understand that but are just making a point.
I shouldn't have noted a classical composer to begin with. to follow that logic through I was implying that Mozart could be the King Of Pop, lol THAT would be an awesome classical prick move.
still, do you realize that Neil Young has written? from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young_discography
it looks like 70 albums! many many many of those songs have been covered and hits for other artists. it doesn't add up to Mozart's output of 40 symphonies, 20 operas and 25 piano concertos
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_symp ... zart_write
(not to mention whatever forms of songs he wrote) but it's freaking impressive.
Michael Jackson wrote 192 songs according to this link
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_song ... ckson_have
even if that's wrong, double it and he's not nearly as prolific.
all respect, I appreciate the music knowledge you bring.
"stay on target... stay on target..."
no, you're just missing the point. Aqua-tek called me out on the musicianship thing. Sinatra played vocals, that was it. it was an example of a legend having a very very narrow range of abilities as opposed to depth.stringtapper wrote:Tone Deft wrote:sh1t, Sinatra didn't even write the songs he wrote and he's a legend.
I'm guessing this is a typo, but Sinatra was never touted as a writer. The Tin Pan Alley tradition always had clear lines in the sand separating the crooners from the songwriters.
Hey TD I know I'm being a knit-picking classical music snob prick, but this list, not even taking quality[i/] into account, but based on sheer quantity of output looks kind of silly. Ludwig and Wolfie's "catalogs" are to those others' in the list as the sun is to Pluto.Tone Deft wrote:MJ helped create a phenomenal catalog of music, one of the best ever (Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Mozart, Tiesto...) MJ attracted talent and was responsible for making that catalog, totally impressive.
ummm this is how threads go off into the weeds, you're talking about the delivery of my argument and not the content. is there really a point to be made there? now we're onto Mozart and Sinatra??? I get your points but watch in other threads what happens when people do this, it gets u-g-l-y. I'm sensing that you understand that but are just making a point.
I shouldn't have noted a classical composer to begin with. to follow that logic through I was implying that Mozart could be the King Of Pop, lol THAT would be an awesome classical prick move.
still, do you realize that Neil Young has written? from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young_discography
it looks like 70 albums! many many many of those songs have been covered and hits for other artists. it doesn't add up to Mozart's output of 40 symphonies, 20 operas and 25 piano concertos
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_symp ... zart_write
(not to mention whatever forms of songs he wrote) but it's freaking impressive.
Michael Jackson wrote 192 songs according to this link
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_song ... ckson_have
even if that's wrong, double it and he's not nearly as prolific.
all respect, I appreciate the music knowledge you bring.
"stay on target... stay on target..."
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
hurlingdervish
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:06 am
- Location: The New England Colonies
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
I HATE THE DELIVERY ARGUMENTS!!! its like they dont want to agree so they pick one word they dont like and run with it.Tone Deft wrote: ummm this is how threads go off into the weeds, you're talking about the delivery of my argument and not the content. is there really a point to be made there? now we're onto Mozart and Sinatra??? I get your points but watch in other threads what happens when people do this, it gets u-g-l-y. I'm sensing that you understand that but are just making a point.
then the only way it ends is someone looking like a giant douche or most likely both people
good call TD
-
stringtapper
- Posts: 6321
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
Actually I agreed with the content of everything he said. I'm just sensitive to the fact that on the internet, what can seem like an unimportant issue of delivery can add up to misinformation in some cases.hurlingdervish wrote:I HATE THE DELIVERY ARGUMENTS!!! its like they dont want to agree so they pick one word they dont like and run with it.Tone Deft wrote: ummm this is how threads go off into the weeds, you're talking about the delivery of my argument and not the content. is there really a point to be made there? now we're onto Mozart and Sinatra??? I get your points but watch in other threads what happens when people do this, it gets u-g-l-y. I'm sensing that you understand that but are just making a point.
then the only way it ends is someone looking like a giant douche or most likely both people
good call TD
Point duly noted about taking threads into oblivion TD. I mostly zoomed in on where you said "Sinatra didn't write the songs he wrote," and I assume you meant "he didn't write the songs he sang," right?
As far as Beethoven and Mozart are concerned I think that point is relevant in the case of MJ because I feel that the culture has lost a sense of scope when it comes to assigning "genius" to what the pop artists of the 20th Century+ have done. That doesn't mean that a talent such as that of MJ's shouldn't be recognized and applauded. Far from it. But I think it's equally important to retain sense of scope and relativity compared to the achievements of the masters from the "Bach to Brahms" canon.
There, I tied it up pretty well with a concession and relevant point and we all escaped douchery.
Unsound Designer
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
tone my man I am not picking a fight or vilifying you. Like I said, to each their own. I just used your opinion to segue into my own. I would write a longer reply but I'm checking this from my iPhone (that's right bitches, I hopped on the bandwagon) and after a while it gets annoying to type long messagesTone Deft wrote:you're putting words into my mouth and picking a fight. it was not a loaded question, I'm being respectful and you're vilifying me.aqua_tek wrote:tone I think you're getting yourself hung up on the whole traditional thing where if someone doesn't play an instrument and / or know music theory, they can't be considered a talented musician.Tone Deft wrote:KK what skills did MJ bring to the table when making tunes? he sings and writes lyrics, did he have anything else to offer? I don't think I've ever seen him play an instrument or talk nuts and bolts about music.
strange, usually when great people in the music world die I kinda wig out, with this one I feel nothing.
respect to the fans though, just because I don't get it doesn't make it wrong.
Mj was a vocalist and a damn good one. He didn't have the theory background perhaps but he did have the voice and the presence.
To each their own I guess.
guys like Burt Bacharach, Neil Diamond, John Lennon/Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, how many times have their songs been used as part of the pop culture canon of music? calling MJ the King Of Pop? I dunno. anyway, history has deemed it so, can't argue with that I'm just saying that there are other highly prolific sources of pop culture music.
all of the videos I've seen of him live, he's lip syncing. shameful. if I want to see dancing I'll go see Cats FFS. I'm being very facetious, but you get my drift. a musician performs music, often playing live he was just a (amazing and revolutionary) dancer.
the people that can jump on any instrument, write lyrics, sing and play frontman for a kick ass band... those guys are studs that I truly admire. sh1t, Sinatra didn't even write the songs he wrote and he's a legend. MJ helped create a phenomenal catalog of music, one of the best ever (Beatles, Elvis, Beethoven, Mozart, Tiesto...) MJ attracted talent and was responsible for making that catalog, totally impressive.
it's my opinion, allow me to have it.
I play the 'playing an instrument' card on this forum because at its most base, boring unimaginative level Live can let any f*ckwit kid make (awful) music and call themselves a musician or producer. please understand why I do that, it's a reality check. it's attitude but I know better than to categorically write people off. there are 'mouse jockies' in this forum that make amazing tunes way beyond what I'll ever do, I know that, I stay out of their way, show respect and wait to learn more from them.
...but that has NOTHING to do with what I've posted.
I'm really not trying to dis the guy. I stopped paying attention to him when he got weird, basically after his hair caught fire in that Pepsi commercial. I was a new wave teenager back then, not really into R&B. surely in time I'll realize that there are albums of his I NEED and I'll go through an MJ phase. but for literally the last 20 years he's been pop culture noise to me, tabloid annoyances, rumors, bad TV and not a single good song for decades, IMO. I wrote earlier in this thread that it will be interesting in 10 years time when people talk about his music first and the drama second, or third or not at all. I look forward to that.
I have enjoyed hearing his music on youtube and TV for the last 24 hours. it's rare when someone of his stature passes, the entire freaking planet is in mourning.
let's not argue.
been watching this guy, he does amazing acoustic renditions of songs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXCyISQSdE <-- Billy Jean on acoustic.
It's all good my man. I respect your opinion.
at least you're talking from a musical standpoint, instead of getting hung up on his weirdness or the molestation accusations. Trust me, I'm fed up with reading so many hateful and ignorant tweets and facebook status messages.
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
I saw him play the piano and program a drum machine live in a video once....In the last documentary with martin whats his name he talked about his process, If my memory serves me he always started with the bassline first. 
His level of creativity and skill was off the charts. Im pretty sure his father made him study theory as a kid.
His level of creativity and skill was off the charts. Im pretty sure his father made him study theory as a kid.-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
^^^
Me too. This is what gets me going. The most sad thing of MJ's death is how much flippant ugly shit is being put out about a very sad man whom hasn't hurt a fly since he was a kid. The human race isn't gonna make much improvement for a while folks. It was literally a global witch-hunt with an astronomical number of people all jumping in on it for years dogging him into his self imposed death, ultimately, because of it. He was tortured by his family/father since he was a kid, finally getting of age, he pops off "Off the wall" and straight into being a shared global commodity. Sure, he hurt many people over the years too, but it was usually the "MJ Corp" and they swindled him plenty too. Lawyers, accountants, managers, assistants, yada yada. But, (MJ) gets "stamped" on everything these handlers do. But he really doesn't want to know about it either... cuz it's impossible to know, it's too much, right?. The dude just wanted to do stuff FFS! That, left this kid wide open to get fucked. Here comes DA Sneddon, a deranged worm of a man with political and judicial power, plus the swindler grifting fucked up in the head families and employees that joined him. They put their sights to Michael and brought him down. Poof, It was that fucking easy. Then the world dives in too? It's like we made and sacrificed one of our own for sport. The human race is shit. Fuck it.
I'll be better tomorrow, sorry.
at least you're talking from a musical standpoint, instead of getting hung up on his weirdness or the molestation accusations. Trust me, I'm fed up with reading so many hateful and ignorant tweets and facebook status messages.
Me too. This is what gets me going. The most sad thing of MJ's death is how much flippant ugly shit is being put out about a very sad man whom hasn't hurt a fly since he was a kid. The human race isn't gonna make much improvement for a while folks. It was literally a global witch-hunt with an astronomical number of people all jumping in on it for years dogging him into his self imposed death, ultimately, because of it. He was tortured by his family/father since he was a kid, finally getting of age, he pops off "Off the wall" and straight into being a shared global commodity. Sure, he hurt many people over the years too, but it was usually the "MJ Corp" and they swindled him plenty too. Lawyers, accountants, managers, assistants, yada yada. But, (MJ) gets "stamped" on everything these handlers do. But he really doesn't want to know about it either... cuz it's impossible to know, it's too much, right?. The dude just wanted to do stuff FFS! That, left this kid wide open to get fucked. Here comes DA Sneddon, a deranged worm of a man with political and judicial power, plus the swindler grifting fucked up in the head families and employees that joined him. They put their sights to Michael and brought him down. Poof, It was that fucking easy. Then the world dives in too? It's like we made and sacrificed one of our own for sport. The human race is shit. Fuck it.
I'll be better tomorrow, sorry.
-
hurlingdervish
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:06 am
- Location: The New England Colonies
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
word choice? lolknotkranky wrote:^^^at least you're talking from a musical standpoint, instead of getting hung up on his weirdness or the molestation accusations. Trust me, I'm fed up with reading so many hateful and ignorant tweets and facebook status messages.
finally getting of age, he pops off
That, left this kid wide open to get fucked.
-
knotkranky
- Posts: 4336
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: la
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
hurlingdervish wrote:word choice? lolknotkranky wrote:^^^at least you're talking from a musical standpoint, instead of getting hung up on his weirdness or the molestation accusations. Trust me, I'm fed up with reading so many hateful and ignorant tweets and facebook status messages.
finally getting of age, he pops off
That, left this kid wide open to get fucked.
lol, thanx for proving my point.
And no thanks for misquoting me with my own rant.
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
It was the APC-MJ 40.ethios4 wrote:Ooh, where do I get the one with the baby's arm sticking out? Reminds me of the old 'baby-arm' controllers from the 80's!Sibanger wrote:
It plays itself so he could free himself up for the dance moves.
Hey, joke aside, I really liked MJ, and I have never been into R&B.
I always felt kind of sorry for him. He was exploited from day 1. No one could be 'normal' after that sort of childhood.
I hope he wasn't guilty of the child thing.
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
I wonder how his passing will impact the music industry as far as sales go. He is probably worth quite a lot, and could be a spark for the "ailing" music industry....
Between the reissues, greatest hits, unreleased and archived tapes......there is a bundle waiting to be made...Maybe this will end up a profitable year for the industry?
Or will his reputation ruin it all?
Between the reissues, greatest hits, unreleased and archived tapes......there is a bundle waiting to be made...Maybe this will end up a profitable year for the industry?
Or will his reputation ruin it all?
http://soundcloud.com/aislingbeing
Live, Reason, Moog sub phatty, Moog sub 37, Ozone 6, guitars, Pedals, proper ergonomic sitting posture, french pressed coffee with a pinch of cardamon.
Live, Reason, Moog sub phatty, Moog sub 37, Ozone 6, guitars, Pedals, proper ergonomic sitting posture, french pressed coffee with a pinch of cardamon.
-
stringtapper
- Posts: 6321
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm
Re: RIP: Michael Jackson ?!?
All the news outlets are reporting that iTunes is getting barraged with MJ downloads. There has also been talk of a vault-full of backlogged material that could be released for years to come a-la Tupac, so yes I think it could be very profitable for some people.aisling wrote:I wonder how his passing will impact the music industry as far as sales go. He is probably worth quite a lot, and could be a spark for the "ailing" music industry....
Between the reissues, greatest hits, unreleased and archived tapes......there is a bundle waiting to be made...Maybe this will end up a profitable year for the industry?
Or will his reputation ruin it all?
Unsound Designer