Did Michael Jackson change music history?

[Iván Sparrow]

A few days back someone told me MJ changed music history. Did he really?

[J.C. Combs]

Of course! Without MJ there would be less R&B presence. Remember, there were not really many black people on MTV in the early 80s or on mainstream radio.

[Jeff Harrington]

Every musician changes music history and the more popular OR the more influential that musician is, the more they can change it. So absolutely, Maestro Jackson changed music history. I doubt anybody here really cares to go into how as it's not quite as interesting as the fact it happened.

[Steve Moshier]

How do you "change music history"? That's implying 'it' was going to go one way (predisposed) and someone amended it (?)
Isn't 'music history' written after the fact of its existence? [just bein' a butt hole]

[Iván Sparrow]

You are right Steve, I agree. The only way to change music history, or just plain history, is if it's been somehow already determined.

I think that when someone says something or someone changed music history they might really be implying that they will be part of it and have sufficient impact to determine things to come. Now we can go on arguing what history is, but lets stick with the common notion of history that doesn't take everything, only what it believes relevant. In this case, Michael Jackson will supposedly be studied and listened to by future generations, at least of musicians (more studied than listened to, if current habits continue).

I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things. He might have been a fabulous entertainer, but not an artist. I know this idea of distinction is removed from the current ideological trends which like to encompass everything together (for instance believing art and entertainment are part of the same thing, thus being the same). So what determines the difference between the two? It's a question of why something is made or done.

But returning to the original question, which is somewhat vague and general: will he be a part of music history? By music I'm implying music as art, not entertainment. Sure, sometimes there are no clear lines between the two, but in this case I believe MJ was an entertainer, period.


Steve Moshier said:

How do you "change music history"? That's implying 'it' was going to go one way (predisposed) and someone amended it (?)
Isn't 'music history' written after the fact of its existence? [just bein' a butt hole]

[J.C. Combs]

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.

[Jeff Harrington]

Isn't it all one big stream of music? Different nodes attract attention - bounce off of other nodes. How it gets written, I don't believe is history - that's the fiction. The history is the stream itself. I just can't see the distinction between entertainment and art any more.

When Bach heard 'Cabbages and turnips have turned me away' and then went and wrote the Goldberg who was making the history? The composer of Cabbages?

Now, we've got Kronos playing Sigur Ros, Paul McCartney writing choral music, etc. I listen differently to different composers, but you know, when I put on say, The Meters (the greatest funk band in the world) or the new Radiohead, I probably listen as carefully as when I put on Lachenmann. Probably because it has more things I can steal from... haha...

J.C. Combs said:

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.

[Iván Sparrow]

"I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha."

Really nice. I didn't define anything, I made a distinction. Don't make your definition of art mine.

Two things I wrote:

1. "So what determines the difference between the two [art and entertainment]? It's a question of why something is made or done."

2. "Sure, sometimes there are no clear lines between the two, but in this case I believe MJ was an entertainer, period."

I do believe The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin are more than plain entertainment. I don't believe Michael Jackson was. Notice the examples you give. You didn't mention Madonna for instance, who is closer to Jackson than the others. When comparing someone like Hendrix to Jackson, the differences will inevitably be more evident than their similarities.

Jazz is a style, not an art form.

Why should an artist avoid casting opinions about what is art and what is not? That doesn't make sense. It's not a question of branding or labeling in approval, it's a way of perceiving the essence of something.

I didn't say art and entertainment oppose each other. The fact that they conflate sometimes doesn't make them the same thing.

You seem irritated from your response. If it's because you think I'm passing judgement on MJ, then it's a misunderstanding. I'm not judging nor being disrespectful. I'm not pulling a Boulez-type of thing saying "Michael Jackson is dead (now we can criticize him)" I just think it's interesting to think and converse about this phenomenon.

J.C. Combs said:

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.

[J.C. Combs]

[Jeff Harrington]

I'm pretty sure that in the near future, most college music history texts - will have chapters on pop music. It just feels inevitable.

Iván Sparrow said:

"I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha."

Really nice. I didn't define anything, I made a distinction. Don't make your definition of art mine.

Two things I wrote:

1. "So what determines the difference between the two [art and entertainment]? It's a question of why something is made or done."

2. "Sure, sometimes there are no clear lines between the two, but in this case I believe MJ was an entertainer, period."

I do believe The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin are more than plain entertainment. I don't believe Michael Jackson was. Notice the examples you give. You didn't mention Madonna for instance, who is closer to Jackson than the others. When comparing someone like Hendrix to Jackson, the differences will inevitably be more evident than their similarities.

Jazz is a style, not an art form.

Why should an artist avoid casting opinions about what is art and what is not? That doesn't make sense. It's not a question of branding or labeling in approval, it's a way of perceiving the essence of something.

I didn't say art and entertainment oppose each other. The fact that they conflate sometimes doesn't make them the same thing.

You seem irritated from your response. If it's because you think I'm passing judgement on MJ, then it's a misunderstanding. I'm not judging nor being disrespectful. I'm not pulling a Boulez-type of thing saying "Michael Jackson is dead (now we can criticize him)" I just think it's interesting to think and converse about this phenomenon.

J.C. Combs said:

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.

[J.C. Combs]

Jazz is a style not an art form - Ivan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz (see the first sentence) Do we really have to debate what is art now?

Sorry if I sound irritated... (I really don't like MJs music) Madonna? Sure. What you are missing is what goes into her music. What influences. Its up to the individual to determine the quality of the art.

You are under the assumption that because you compose, you are the most qualified to judge what art is. On the contrary, as an artist its up to you to be the most open-minded which, fortunately or unfortunately, involves avoiding critical assumptions of what art is. Or at least should. I honestly don't think I've ever seen or heard something and thought "that's not art." I definitely impose my taste and know if I dislike it or not as art.

Just my little advice on life being an old man and all.



Iván Sparrow said:

"I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha."

Really nice. I didn't define anything, I made a distinction. Don't make your definition of art mine.

Two things I wrote:

1. "So what determines the difference between the two [art and entertainment]? It's a question of why something is made or done."

2. "Sure, sometimes there are no clear lines between the two, but in this case I believe MJ was an entertainer, period."

I do believe The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin are more than plain entertainment. I don't believe Michael Jackson was. Notice the examples you give. You didn't mention Madonna for instance, who is closer to Jackson than the others. When comparing someone like Hendrix to Jackson, the differences will inevitably be more evident than their similarities.

Jazz is a style, not an art form.

Why should an artist avoid casting opinions about what is art and what is not? That doesn't make sense. It's not a question of branding or labeling in approval, it's a way of perceiving the essence of something.

I didn't say art and entertainment oppose each other. The fact that they conflate sometimes doesn't make them the same thing.

You seem irritated from your response. If it's because you think I'm passing judgement on MJ, then it's a misunderstanding. I'm not judging nor being disrespectful. I'm not pulling a Boulez-type of thing saying "Michael Jackson is dead (now we can criticize him)" I just think it's interesting to think and converse about this phenomenon.

J.C. Combs said:

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.

[J.C. Combs]

I thought of a good example. Since art is abstract, perhaps money would work as an example.

A scene at a bank:

Teller: Hey mister bossman, someone just gave me a really wrinkled dollar bill.

Mngr: Hmm, yeah, and its been through the washing machine too many times, quite faded. That's not money.

There is poor quality and high quality art. But art is abstract and up to the individual in their interpretation. History usually clarifies where the artist stands (although sometimes history forgets altogether that a brilliant artist existed).

Speaking of Madonna, lets talk a little about Masonna. Yamazaki Maso, considered to be one of the top composers of noise music. Is it art?

[Steve Moshier]

"Just my little advice on life being an old man and all."
-I'll always be older than you... :-D

J.C. Combs said:

Jazz is a style not an art form - Ivan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz (see the first sentence) Do we really have to debate what is art now?

Sorry if I sound irritated... (I really don't like MJs music) Madonna? Sure. What you are missing is what goes into her music. What influences. Its up to the individual to determine the quality of the art.

You are under the assumption that because you compose, you are the most qualified to judge what art is. On the contrary, as an artist its up to you to be the most open-minded which, fortunately or unfortunately, involves avoiding critical assumptions of what art is. Or at least should. I honestly don't think I've ever seen or heard something and thought "that's not art." I definitely impose my taste and know if I dislike it or not as art.

Just my little advice on life being an old man and all.



Iván Sparrow said:

"I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha."

Really nice. I didn't define anything, I made a distinction. Don't make your definition of art mine.

Two things I wrote:

1. "So what determines the difference between the two [art and entertainment]? It's a question of why something is made or done."

2. "Sure, sometimes there are no clear lines between the two, but in this case I believe MJ was an entertainer, period."

I do believe The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin are more than plain entertainment. I don't believe Michael Jackson was. Notice the examples you give. You didn't mention Madonna for instance, who is closer to Jackson than the others. When comparing someone like Hendrix to Jackson, the differences will inevitably be more evident than their similarities.

Jazz is a style, not an art form.

Why should an artist avoid casting opinions about what is art and what is not? That doesn't make sense. It's not a question of branding or labeling in approval, it's a way of perceiving the essence of something.

I didn't say art and entertainment oppose each other. The fact that they conflate sometimes doesn't make them the same thing.

You seem irritated from your response. If it's because you think I'm passing judgement on MJ, then it's a misunderstanding. I'm not judging nor being disrespectful. I'm not pulling a Boulez-type of thing saying "Michael Jackson is dead (now we can criticize him)" I just think it's interesting to think and converse about this phenomenon.

J.C. Combs said:

"I believe MJ had a tremendous influence in the entertainment world, but in art I don't think so. I believe this to be an important distinction, for art and entertainment are different things" Ivan

You're in murky waters. An artist should avoid casting opinions on what is art and what is not, but here at net"NEW"music the question of new forms of music not being viable forms of art is becoming more prevalent.

And if you think about it, art and entertainment don't oppose one another. You are implying that its either art or entertainment. That makes no sense. So you're telling me you don't find jazz music entertaining?

What about the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin. Do they fit into the art category or entertainment category.

Perhaps you mean pop culture, but now I'm explaining what your post would mean if it made sense and
even if it made sense, I'd still disagree.

I suppose we could use your definition as a rule. If someone falls asleep to it, its art?? haha.