Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why was Michael Jackson so popular?

Rate this topic


cliveandrews
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No you didn't. You unknowingly participated in a fraud; you were part of a crime. Get it? There is no similarity in buying a record, where the record plays the songs that you expected, and buying into a cascading fraud...

But if I get paid in full I got what I was promised. Same thing as getting the song you wanted. How was I to know others were going to get fleeced? I got paid.

Someone who sincerely buys into intelligent design, palm reading, fortune telling, etc., are all ripped off, and will learn this invariably. Those who are not what I would classify as "serious," are ones who are not buying the stated "product," but are buying assistance in their various evasions.

So what? Your contention is that Jackson was popular because he performed quality music, and that the music was good quality because it was popular. So if popularity is your measure of quality, then the actual merits of any given product are secondary.

This analogy is not as bad; however, it still fails. In order to properly evaluate Obama, one has to ask: Does Obama promote or sabotage freedom; and is he qualified to be an executive responsible for upholding the rights to freedom of his posterity?

Oh? You're going to judge by standards other than mere popularity now? What If a voter wanted to see a nanny state dictatorship? Didn't he get the quality he voted for?

BTW You should really lay off the ad-hominem attacks, if for no other reason than courtesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I came up with an analogy to MJ. Two stars that were mega stars in their own fields, Elvis Presley and John Wayne, I think were similar in their success to MJ.

Elvis sold tons of records and continues to sell well to this day. I think he may have the highest sales of any singer ever. But, when it comes to music-qua-music he was certainly not great. He was just brilliantly good at what he did, being a sex symbol and singing love songs. He also had lots of presence and charisma, which made him great on the big screen.

John Wayne was clearly not a great actor, he was just a bigger than life character and that's what made him perhaps the most popular movie star of all time. He usually played the hero and he had a real sense of right and wrong even in his own personal life.

In both cases I recognize why these people did so well. I think the same applies to MJ. I personally value people like that, because they bring something unique and positive to life that we'd otherwise not have experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Mike's music: He was a genius. It's sad that some will refuse to see what's undeniable. Is it a form of evasion?

I think it's more of a testament to the power of art -- Rand's art in this case.

Rand's novels so effectively project her vision of "ideal men" that many of her fans seem to believe that they too are heroic giants who possess attributes like superior intelligence, abilities and tastes. Her art allows her readers to feel what it's like to exist as creative geniuses who produce at world-class levels, and I think that many of her fans find that feeling so real and convincing that they probably begin to believe it about themselves. Regardless of how little they may know, how little they may have accomplished, and how negligent they may have been in developing any real talents, they seem to imagine themselves as looking down on the world from the vantage point of their fictional heroes; they seem to like to believe that almost everything is beneath them.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more of a testament to the power of art -- Rand's art in this case.

Rand's novels so effectively project her vision of "ideal men" that many of her fans seem to believe that they too are heroic giants who possess attributes like superior intelligence, abilities and tastes. Her art allows her readers to feel what it's like to exist as creative geniuses who produce at world-class levels, and I think that many of her fans find that feeling so real and convincing that they probably begin to believe it about themselves. Regardless of how little they may know, how little they may have accomplished, and how negligent they may have been in developing any real talents, they seem to imagine themselves as looking down on the world from the vantage point of their fictional heroes; they seem to like to believe that almost everything is beneath them.

J

Thanks for that bit of psychoanalysis, there, Dr. Phil.

I don't care for Jacko's music because I'm not in to that kind of music, period. It doesn't have crap to do with Rand's idealized heros. I didn't care for it long before I heard of Rand.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? Your contention is that Jackson was popular because he performed quality music, and that the music was good quality because it was popular. So if popularity is your measure of quality, then the actual merits of any given product are secondary.

No, my contention was not that. My statements of how many records he sold, was in regards to an objective measurement of the value of his music. My contention that his music is "quality music" is supported by the Ayn Rand quote. Follow along, and be more detail oriented please. This discussion is getting really old, and I am weary of you. No disrespect or Ad hominem intended.

Oh? You're going to judge by standards other than mere popularity now? What If a voter wanted to see a nanny state dictatorship? Didn't he get the quality he voted for?

Again, I submitted in an earlier post that an objective measurement of the value of Michael Jackson's music is $. Measurement = quantity. I am done discussin this with you any longer. I gave you Ayn Rand's take on the matter, AND explained to you how you have taken my statement out of context. There is nothing more to discuss with you on the matter.

BTW You should really lay off the ad-hominem attacks, if for no other reason than courtesy.

At the risk of another unfounded accusation, I will step out on a limb and say that you are reminding me of of Jake. Will you next accuse me of giving the "black perspective," or some other ethnic "jab?" For the sake of argument, please demonstrate any ad hominem fallacies I am guilty of, and please don't try and smuggle in some statement as if a previous insult to me didn't warrant it.

Ball is in your court on the ad hominem matter. I consider any evaluative discussion on Michael Jackson, or your "skills" at analogies to be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elvis sold tons of records and continues to sell well to this day. I think he may have the highest sales of any singer ever. But, when it comes to music-qua-music he was certainly not great. He was just brilliantly good at what he did, being a sex symbol and singing love songs. He also had lots of presence and charisma, which made him great on the big screen.

I disagree. Do I think that he was even as good as Michael Jackson; no. But was he great; yes! Again:

* The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.

* One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work.

* In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.

By these standards, I deem Elvis great! I will even go further in saying that as a pioneer, his technical skills were not as keen as say a Michael Jackson, BUT it was him (and many other unknown--to the "mainstream"--African American artists) that began the movement that makes Michael Jackson and others since the era of Elvis possible. Elvis' theme was that of rebellion against the stale and stagnant--non-sexual--tradition. Goto www.youtube.com and look up his first performance on Ed Sullivan to see this. Elvis' presentation of music/musical performance was that of a more sexually inclusive nature, as opposed to the break that had previously occurred where music was divorced from sexuality, in an attempt--I believe--to appease the power of that time: The catholic church. Centuries later, a movement called Rock and Roll (which meant sex!) was started, and Elvis' performances and style of music began a change of bringing music back to its origin: Something to attract the opposite sex.

John Wayne was clearly not a great actor, he was just a bigger than life character and that's what made him perhaps the most popular movie star of all time.

Again, I disagree for the same reasons. I gave my standards, which I believe are pretty good ones. What about them seems wrong to you; or how is it that they don't apply to John Wayne? Also, have you seen The Searchers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, The Alamo, Big Jake, True Grit, or The Shootist? If you have seen any of these, how could you possibly say that "John Wayne was clearly not a great actor?"

In both cases I recognize why these people did so well. I think the same applies to MJ. I personally value people like that, because they bring something unique and positive to life that we'd otherwise not have experienced.

I agree with you. The concept that you define is called: art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more of a testament to the power of art -- Rand's art in this case.

Rand's novels so effectively project her vision of "ideal men" that many of her fans seem to believe that they too are heroic giants who possess attributes like superior intelligence, abilities and tastes. Her art allows her readers to feel what it's like to exist as creative geniuses who produce at world-class levels, and I think that many of her fans find that feeling so real and convincing that they probably begin to believe it about themselves. Regardless of how little they may know, how little they may have accomplished, and how negligent they may have been in developing any real talents, they seem to imagine themselves as looking down on the world from the vantage point of their fictional heroes; they seem to like to believe that almost everything is beneath them.

J

It's good to see someone with a brain on the forum; as opposed to the troglodytes that I have been discussing this issue with. I agree with you 100% that there are many so-called objectivists, who themselves are most mediocre, and, nothing--at all--like the characters Rand portrays. These types are really men of very little self-esteem, who wish they were like Howard Roark or John Gault, but in reality, such men rationalize hating them; because, they wish they were them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for Jacko's music because I'm not in to that kind of music, period. It doesn't have crap to do with Rand's idealized heros. I didn't care for it long before I heard of Rand.

I believe you. But, do you consider him to be a great artist?

Do you agree with the following:

"The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life"

If you don't why not?

If you don't consider Michael Jackson a great artist, how to you reconcile your opinion given the definition above? (assuming that you agree with the definition)

The reason I say this is because I dislike Elvis with all my heart. I can't stand his singing and his "dancing" is repugnant. However, I classify him as a great artist. I believe if there is someone here that does not like Mike, but isn't some sicko--it's you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Do I think that he was even as good as Michael Jackson; no. But was he great; yes! Again:

He was great at what he did. What I'm referring to, however, is his music as such. Elvis' music was not great. As a performer, overall, he was brilliant at what he did.

* The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist’s philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art.

Yes, that's true. Shakespeare was a brilliant poet and great at character development, but had a terrible sense of life. He was a determinist, yet a great artist.

Again, I disagree for the same reasons. I gave my standards, which I believe are pretty good ones. What about them seems wrong to you; or how is it that they don't apply to John Wayne? Also, have you seen The Searchers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, The Alamo, Big Jake, True Grit, or The Shootist? If you have seen any of these, how could you possibly say that "John Wayne was clearly not a great actor?"

Well, I love John Wayne, but he always basically played the same guy. An example of a great actor would be Gene Hackman. He could play a wide range of parts and become that character. John Wayne was great at what he did, and I enjoyed him for it, but could you see him doing Shakespeare?

How many times did I use “great” in this post? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more of a testament to the power of art -- Rand's art in this case.

Rand's novels so effectively project her vision of "ideal men" that many of her fans seem to believe that they too are heroic giants who possess attributes like superior intelligence, abilities and tastes. Her art allows her readers to feel what it's like to exist as creative geniuses who produce at world-class levels, and I think that many of her fans find that feeling so real and convincing that they probably begin to believe it about themselves. Regardless of how little they may know, how little they may have accomplished, and how negligent they may have been in developing any real talents, they seem to imagine themselves as looking down on the world from the vantage point of their fictional heroes; they seem to like to believe that almost everything is beneath them.

J

When in doubt, psycho-analize. Never fails. (at proving that you have no ability to understand the concept argument, let alone defend a stance) I also was aware that Michael Jackson's music is about as plain as any pop music, long before I read Ayn Rand.

I dislike Michael Jackson's music because it is not good. "Your mama, in the name of John Glaub" over there already conceded the point, and is going on about how people imagine him dancing while sitting in their cars, you haven't even addressed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...