• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Michael Jackson Overrated?

IS Michael Jackson Overrated?

  • He's good but overrated

    Votes: 11 33.3%

  • He IS the King!

    Votes: 15 45.5%

  • He isnt that good and he IS overrated

    Votes: 6 18.2%

  • OTHER / I Dont Know

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Michael Jackson can dance and sing. But so can many, MANY others. Was he just there at the right time and right place? Is he REALLY that good? King of Pop? or just a guy that was very talented but overrated?
 
I kinda liked some of his songs, but this was back when he was a black man.
 
He was insanely talented, and it was more than just the singing and dancing. I thought he was guilty, but that didn't erase his talent. I was deeply saddened at his death.

I remember, when Thriller was releasing hit after hit, I thought "He's burning too bright. He's going to burn out."
 
Simon W. Moon said:
How is this not some subset of argumentum ad populum?
Click to expand...

Because the argumentum ad populum can't apply to music. It states that "If many believe so, it is so." People try avoid that fallacy in something like, say, policy-making to avoid a tyranny of the majority -- in other words, just because many people prefer it, does not mean one should enforce it over the minority.

But in music, there is no "correct." It's ALL dictated by preference, and the minority is welcome to ignore the taste of the majority regardless. So the spirit of the argumentum ad populum doesn't really apply here.
 
Last edited:
I s'pose that could be one interpretation of it.

It usually means that when proof or evidence for a position is requested or expected, the number of people who believe it is brought up as the evidence that the position is true instead of actually demonstrating that the position is true.

Jeezy said:
But in music, there is no "correct." It's ALL dictated by preference, and the minority is welcome to ignore the taste of the majority regardless. So the spirit of the argumentum ad populum doesn't really apply here.
Click to expand...
So the only arbiter of what is and is not great music is how many people like it?
Does that count the music that won't be appreciated until decades after the authors death, like the Brandenburg concertos?
Or did those suck until enough people liked them?

And is the three chord rock of Back in Black better music than Mozart because more people have bought Back in Black?

I think that there is more to art than the appreciation of the layman.
ymmv.
 
OK now that others have replied.... I feel that he IS overrated. Other people dance better and sing better. yes, he was good. But I never thought he was really that great. Heck if we go to the "what are we listening to" thread, NO ONE has ever brought up a MJ song. If someone can provide a link to a MJ song BEFORE today, I shall buy them a $10 item from Penzeys Spices.
 

Who do you think can dance better?
 

Yes, I understand. Doesn't change my argument.


The Mozart/Back in Black argument doesn't really apply because albums did not exist during the height of Mozart's popularity. The fact that certain art is appreciated post-mortem is also iffy. Was that art really "worth" anything when nobody listened to it? Yes, it was complex and skillful. But was it "worth" anything until people understood it and began to talk about it?

It's possible to make a complex piece of art that nobody likes. Could you really classify that as "great" art? In my opinion, the worth of a piece of art is directly proportional to the number of people who enjoy it. Which do you think people would prefer to prevent -- the demolition of the statue of liberty, or the burning of a technically complex artist that nobody really knows?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think he's overrated by some fans. I know people who acted as if he was still at his peak when he clearly wasn't. After the Bad album, his career was pretty craptastic. Though back in the 80's he was THE MAN and deserved the title. He was a hit machine and a great performer. He just didn't age well as a person or as an artist. In the 80's we thought Michael was a little weird, but in a loveable, eccentric sort of way. In the 90's and beyond, Michael wasweird in a creepy sort of way.
 
I never liked any of Michael Jackson's music after he was no longer with the Jackson 5. Just wasn't my taste.
 
He was good no denying that...and when he was a kid on the jackson 5 and normal he was alot better...but for along time he was a bag of bones looked like a scarecrow with a made up face...but that was his insanity....you have to pity him for what he did to himself
 

Anthony Gormley's "Angel of the North" is possibly the most viewed work of art in the world as it is passed by 90,000 commuters every day. It's good, but not that good.

 
Katt Williams:

"**** michael, I don't care how good you can sing and dance. you can't play with little boy's booty holes. I got babies, you nasty mother ****er."


like far too many others, talent wasted on a sorry individual. perhaps he was abused himself as a child. perhaps some traumatic event froze his emotional development at the 13 y/o level. whatever the case, he was a freak.
 
Jackson was never the King that was, is and always will be Elvis.

Jackson was a pedophile and in the end Jackson was very mentally ill.

Most people in the entertainment industry are way over rated.

Having interviewed a lot of famous and semi famous people I have to say most are just people and there is nothing special about them.

They can sing, act, or have a good Radio voice and a little talent but in the end they are going to have gas, burp, and sit on a toilet just like everyone else.
 
Jeezy said:
The Mozart/Back in Black argument doesn't really apply because albums did not exist during the height of Mozart's popularity.
Click to expand...
Their weren't as many people either. But the point stands. If quality is determined by popularity then these are the kinds of conclusions we will reach.

Jeezy said:
Was that art really "worth" anything when nobody listened to it? Yes, it was complex and skillful. But was it "worth" anything until people understood it and began to talk about it?
Click to expand...
Where did the discussion of "worth" come from?

Jeezy said:
It's possible to make a complex piece of art that nobody likes. Could you really classify that as "great" art?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be complex to be great. But, yes something can be great even if it's not well-known.
Did Thriller music suck until it was released and sold?

Jeezy said:
In my opinion, the worth of a piece of art is directly proportional to the number of people who enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Where did the discussion of "worth" come from?

Jeezy said:
Which do you think people would prefer to prevent -- the demolition of the statue of liberty, or the burning of a technically complex artist that nobody really knows?
Click to expand...
And this is the criteria by which we should judge art? Whether or not people would burn the author (alive?) or the Statue of Liberty?
That seems just a stranger, Wickerman version of ad populum.
 
The issue when discussing art is its an entirely subjective thing.

Once you get past the "fundamentals" of something, it is all preference. And even then, some people can see breaking from the fundamentals purposefully as art itself.

There is something to be said with the notion of popularity defining what's "good". Take Mozart or Beethoven for example...are they "great" classical music because they are somehow significantly better by some measurable standard than other contemporary classical composers? Or did their music gain popularity that allowed it to live on through the ages better than other composers and thus the popularity is what essentially dictated they were "good"?

I think in terms of pop music...be it bubblegum, rock, rap, R&B, country, whatever pop you wish...popularity and longevity does say a lot about it. Is Adele a better singer than Britney Spears? Without question in my mind. However, I'd rate Britney as a greater and more influencial all around performer in a heart beat due to her longevity in the public, multitude of successful songs, and essentially helping to create the modern mold for the female young pop star as the first on since Madonna that truly captured such significant and lengthy attention.

In comparison to contemporaries in this age of music, I don't believe Michael Jackson is overrated. Indeed, I think some may underrate him due to his personal isses (Similar to how OJ Simpson is more apt to not appear on a list of the top 10 or 20 running backs in some peoples minds). Thriller was an absolute revolution with regards to music videos and how they were done. The man had a successful mainstream song in five seperate decades. Was regarded quickly as a prodigy as a young child and, unlike many child singers, managed to actually maintain his singing ability after being a child. He's got the largest selling record in the world and the most #1 singles by a male performer in the modern era. He's the only person in the Dance hall of fame whose dancing career focused around pop/rock and roll. He transcended music with regards to putting out mini-films, video games, commercials, etc. He became essentially a social icon as much as an actual performer. The glove, the moonwalk, the kick, the "cha'mone" line, etc. These are random cultural references that if you randomly did today most anyone above a certain age is going to INSTANTLY recognize.

As a musician, the guy was multi-talented in a package I would argue fewer have than the OP makes it out to be. His vocal abilities were excellent and are regarded by many critics as being a major talent. As I said earlier, he was thought of as a prodigy as a child. He had significant vocal range and stylistic abilities with his singing from your more fast paced rapping, to straight singing, hitting large highers or going with teeth clenching aggression. Also, not as commonly known from just his songs, he was rather adapt at beat boxing, mimicing various instruments and used that as part of his song creation method in nailing down tunes. Which leads to the next thing, unlike many current singers Jackson also wrote much of his own songs, which has led to him to be inducted into the songwriters hall of fame as well. His dancing skills were exceedingly good, and to my understanding he too generally was involved in the choreography of his videos. His stylistic range in the type of music he would work with was diverse, from motown to funk to more rock inspired beats.

In terms of the modern era, I'd definitely place him on similar footing as the Beatles, Elvis, and some of the other more highly regarded as extremely influencial acts of the past 50 years.
 
Sadly it seems that the bigger the star, the greater the talent, the bigger the personal demons. the list of famous celebrities who succumbed to these demons is lengthy
 
OscarB63 said:
Sadly it seems that the bigger the star, the greater the talent, the bigger the personal demons. the list of famous celebrities who succumbed to these demons is lengthy
Click to expand...
I suspect that many, many people would have real issues if they could afford to have them.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Michael Jackson can dance and sing. But so can many, MANY others. Was he just there at the right time and right place? Is he REALLY that good? King of Pop? or just a guy that was very talented but overrated?
Click to expand...

He could dance and sing better than others. He worked his ass off to get that good. No. He is not overrated. He was appropriately a global icon.
 
Michael Jackson isn't anything but deceased.

He WAS over rated... and he WAS not that good.

Let's get our tenses right, eh people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…