6 ms·

If you think Michael Jackson was a musical master, you've come to the wrong shop. Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician. Have you actually li

by tumult 17y ago

If you think Michael Jackson was a musical master, you've come to the wrong shop. Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician. Have you actually listened to any of his music? Four decades ago, Time magazine declared "Civilisation" to be TV's "most distinguished (not to mention only new) cultural series" of the year. Those words have a hollow ring today. For years PBS has been trimming back its high-culture programming, partly because it doesn't do well in the ratings and partly, I suspect, because such lofty fare has lost favor with the intellectual elite. I bet that, decades ago, the quality of AM radio programming declined as it struggled for attention among people (especially younger ones) turning to TV. It shouldn't be surprising that today, TV programming is racing to the bottom.

chubbard 17y ago
> Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician. Before you get your due remember all of Michael Jackson's best selling hits were produced by Quincy Jones who is very much a fan of those musical masters that came before. And, one of the great musicians of our time. Much of what was the early Michael Jackson sound was Quincy's creation.
- tumult 17y ago
  1) I'm not saying those other people aren't masters as well. Clearly they are. I listen to all of them, frequently. 2) When I say "Michael Jackson", I am referring to the entire 'product' known as Michael Jackson. If I said "Apple has some good laptops" you don't say "Actually it was Jonathan Ives that designed them." Most of MJ's famous hits were primarily written by the person himself, though. Produced by Quincy Jones, yes. Not written. Those two terms have come to be commonly conflated recently.
alexgartrell 17y ago
Do you really think that Michael Jackson will have the permanence of Shakespeare or Jefferson? Young people mostly don't care about [him] or for his music, and he is unlikely to make the history books. I agree with the spirit of your comment though, in believing that the linked article was elitist beyond reason. Anyone who would describe western society as contemptible because the "intellectuals" don't watch PBS needs to pick up a book (just like the "intellectuals" have done). The information density is way too low for someone with real stuff to do, which is why television is relegated to relaxation time, where bandwidth is a non-issue. [Edited]
- AlisdairO 17y ago
  Do you really think that Michael Jackson will have the permanence of Shakespeare or Jefferson? Young people mostly don't care about or for his music I have no real comment on MJ as a musician, but I just wanted to point out that young people don't care about or for Shakespeare either, and haven't for a long time. They overwhelmingly tend to feel that it is something forced upon them that has little relevance to their lives. Obviously there are exceptions, but they aren't exactly the common case.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - mburney 17y ago
    This is not a problem for Shakespeare's legacy, since high literature is not meant for only one particular demographic group. Pop music on the other hand is targeted primarily to young people of a particular time and place, which makes it transitory and eventually forgotten.
  - maw 17y ago
    It's true that many young people don't care much about Shakespeare, but some people come around to reading him later in life, voluntarily. For my part, I haven't read much Shakespeare as an adult, but I have a poster about him and his language framed and mounted on the wall behind me... I mean, I now read a lot of stuff that I should (for want of a better word) have been reading in high school and college (and Shakespeare is part of that canon) and don't read much stuff I read when I was in high school. (It's true about the poster, though.) Jackson's style of music isn't really my cup of tea, but maybe the former young people of the future will come around to him too, much as I came around to listening to the Beatles.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  If not Michael Jackson, do you think any 20th century musician will have historical permanence? He probably comes after the Beatles and Elvis, but after that, it gets harder to come up with musical performers who made a bigger global impact.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
..Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician... Perhaps this is the appropriate point to encourage folks to learn a bit more about art. Because the more you know and understand, the more you can appreciate.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  or not ;)
  - tumult 17y ago
    Don't take the votes too seriously on HN anymore, they aren't really worth anything now.

by tumult 17y ago

chubbard 17y ago

> Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician. Before you get your due remember all of Michael Jackson's best selling hits were produced by Quincy Jones who is very much a fan of those musical masters that came before. And, one of the great musicians of our time. Much of what was the early Michael Jackson sound was Quincy's creation.

tumult 17y ago
1) I'm not saying those other people aren't masters as well. Clearly they are. I listen to all of them, frequently. 2) When I say "Michael Jackson", I am referring to the entire 'product' known as Michael Jackson. If I said "Apple has some good laptops" you don't say "Actually it was Jonathan Ives that designed them." Most of MJ's famous hits were primarily written by the person himself, though. Produced by Quincy Jones, yes. Not written. Those two terms have come to be commonly conflated recently.

alexgartrell 17y ago

Do you really think that Michael Jackson will have the permanence of Shakespeare or Jefferson? Young people mostly don't care about [him] or for his music, and he is unlikely to make the history books. I agree with the spirit of your comment though, in believing that the linked article was elitist beyond reason. Anyone who would describe western society as contemptible because the "intellectuals" don't watch PBS needs to pick up a book (just like the "intellectuals" have done). The information density is way too low for someone with real stuff to do, which is why television is relegated to relaxation time, where bandwidth is a non-issue. [Edited]

AlisdairO 17y ago
Do you really think that Michael Jackson will have the permanence of Shakespeare or Jefferson? Young people mostly don't care about or for his music I have no real comment on MJ as a musician, but I just wanted to point out that young people don't care about or for Shakespeare either, and haven't for a long time. They overwhelmingly tend to feel that it is something forced upon them that has little relevance to their lives. Obviously there are exceptions, but they aren't exactly the common case.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- mburney 17y ago
  This is not a problem for Shakespeare's legacy, since high literature is not meant for only one particular demographic group. Pop music on the other hand is targeted primarily to young people of a particular time and place, which makes it transitory and eventually forgotten.
- maw 17y ago
  It's true that many young people don't care much about Shakespeare, but some people come around to reading him later in life, voluntarily. For my part, I haven't read much Shakespeare as an adult, but I have a poster about him and his language framed and mounted on the wall behind me... I mean, I now read a lot of stuff that I should (for want of a better word) have been reading in high school and college (and Shakespeare is part of that canon) and don't read much stuff I read when I was in high school. (It's true about the poster, though.) Jackson's style of music isn't really my cup of tea, but maybe the former young people of the future will come around to him too, much as I came around to listening to the Beatles.
jimbokun 17y ago
If not Michael Jackson, do you think any 20th century musician will have historical permanence? He probably comes after the Beatles and Elvis, but after that, it gets harder to come up with musical performers who made a bigger global impact.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

..Oh, blow me. Michael Jackson was an incredible musician... Perhaps this is the appropriate point to encourage folks to learn a bit more about art. Because the more you know and understand, the more you can appreciate.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
or not ;)
- tumult 17y ago
  Don't take the votes too seriously on HN anymore, they aren't really worth anything now.