JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Media Coverage Of Michael Jackson

There's no doubt that MJ was a very talented entertainer/singer/dancer. He ranks up there with the best. I don't know much about his songwriting, though I know he used many, many talented people (composers,arrangers,synthesists,etc) in his productions.

I read in recording mag once that he was drawing ideas from a thousand musicians/synthesists for one of his albums. Still, you put a bad performer in the best of the best environment; they're still gonna sound like a bad performer. So MJ worked with the cream-of-the-top because he was the cream-of-the-crop in what he did.

As far as using the "popularity" method in determining the "good, better, best" songs; I wouldn't put much stock in that approach. I'm sure we all can think of crappy songs that were popular. I know this is the favored indicator of a great song by execs in the Music Industry. But then this is more a profit indicator, not an artistic evaluation.

The test of time method has some rationale. However, again, it's only one facet of what a great song is. The Star Spangled Banner has stood the test of time. IMO, one of the worst songs of all time.

I imagine a piece of music could be judged on its technical attributes. But what would the criterion be? And that would require very knowledgeable experts that agree on the criterion. And who would select these experts? Experts in every field disagree all the time.

I think it all boils down to personal opinion and how a piece of music affects each of us individually.

MJ earned his place in popular music history. Yes, extremely talented.

Best, John