The Thriller Thread

[Shallow]

shallow, you're cool but trauma is an OG who has been speaking from a diverse standpoint since the late 90s.

I feel you are misjudging Thriller but that's cool. Zeppelin had the worst lyrics of all the great classic rock bands, even the lyrics of their deepest songs sound contrived in an attempt to sound as deep as Floyd or even the Beatles. They were dope as shit, but to say Zeppelin were great lyricists is a stretch. They're a sonic band, bands like Floyd, beatles, doors, and especially Dylan, could be poetry.

furthermore, being a sonic artist is a perfectly valid thing to be. look at jazz, lot of it has no words, still has a musical depth. songs like Billie jean and PYT, as well as the songs off the wall and i can't help it from off the wall are well crafted songs, very very effective melodically and musically. homey, I SAW Bob Dylan, I love that man and his art, but I won't front on michael J just cause he's glossily produced. so is 'modern times' but that shit still bangs. sometimes it's good to have shit well produced. preferring poor production reminds me of cats who buy torn up jeans, but hey that's just me.

i agree all the other bands you mentioned are dope as shit, but ACDC? to me, there's nothing they offer me that zeppelin can't give me. they can rock like zeppelin, but they couldn't make 'going to california' or 'that's the way'.

-T

(Sorry in advance for the long read you're going to go through)

I don't have a beef with you or your musical tastes. If you want to like Thriller that's great. You are however missing all my points;

1. I never gave any credit to the lyrics of Led Zeppelin. Not once did I even mention that aspects. I mentioned Communication Breakdown, but I wasn't referring to the words. It was the whole package that I was highlighting. The singing, the playing, the production, the music and most importantly the sound. Nothing on Thriller or anything by MJ comes close to that track for me. If I wanted to showcase lyrics I'd use something from Springsteen's Ghost of Tom Joad album. If Bruce is William Faulkner or John Steinbeck then MJ is Dan Brown.

2. Yeah MJ has well crafted tunes and so do the Backstreet Boys, and that's not an insult to MJ. MJ (and Temperton) knew how to craft with in the mold. Simple sometimes cheesy lyrics to a catchy melody and makes people want to sing a long. You could play those songs for just about anyone anywhere in the world and they'll have fun listening. Just like you could play Rocky 4 for just about anyone in the world and they'll have fun watching it. Then you take a film like The Shawshank Redemption; kids will think it's boring, jocks might think its stupid, girls may want more romance, frat brother want comedy. Rocky 4 made about 300 million while Shawshank made about 30. One has a lot more in it than the other. I used to have an English teacher who would read over any book you chose to do an essay on. He said a good essay needs to be on a book that is like a think stew, and any time we showed him a book that didn't have much to it he'd say "the broth is thin, find another book". As it pertains to an MJ song; the broth is thin.

3. Who ever said AC DC was all that good? I just said they had an album that sold well and I predicted it would out sell Thriller. I think so because while Thriller sounds very 80s, Back in Black doesn't sounded very dated and can appeal to harder sound fans as well as pop fans. I'm no huge AC DC fan. I have fun listening to their cuts, just like I do MJ's cuts.

4. Where did I mention that "good" production is bad? I didn't say Thriller's production was too good, I said it was too much. It was overproduced. It was too glossy. I'm going to use another film analogy because in my opinion all truly great songs are in fact short films that take place in your mind when you listen to them. Let's take a film like Spider-Man; not a bad film (I wasn't a huge fan but that was because I'm a comic book kid who think Hollywood ruins most of their adaptations) but not something that will have a profound affect on the art of filmmaking either. It looks great, because it has to. I don't mean the special affects, but the quality of the images on the screen. They are very hi-res easy on the eye shots that are meant to grab the attention of all those who look in the direction of the film. Now take a film like Memento or Unforgiven. They have a very grainy look to them; a rugged beauty if you will. Darker shots with less light and not much over dramatic shots that aren't so in your face. If you gave either of those films the high cost images that went into Spiderman it would ruin them because it wouldn't fit. It wouldn't make sense. It would take away from the story and it's meaning by adding too much to the film. If you took a song like Lennon's Working Class Hero and gave it to David Foster and he added synth drums, a tapping guitar solo for the bridge, a gospel choir on background vocals chorus, and a full out orchestra for the last verse and chorus; the song would no longer make sense. It would cease to be what Lennon wrote it as and become something else, something less in my opinion. It's not that I prefer bad production it's just that when you have too much its makes it worse. Imagine the Godfather directed by Tim Burton done in the style of Edward Scissorhands with all those bright colours and shots of the beautiful suburban scenery. It just wouldn't make sense. It works with Edward Scissorhands because it's that kind of film. Kind of like how Oops I did it Again is that kind of song. You could give that song to a Neil Young and he could try his hardest to make it seem brooding and rugged but no matter how hard he tries you can't sing those words and play that melody and be taken seriously. It would be seen as comedy, great comedy, but that's all it can be.


And me and Trauma go way back. I know what he's about and I know he knows his shit. I also know he can be a clown who has fun antagonizing people and that's what he's doing here. He's just trying to get under my skin. He may take his music very seriously but he doesn't take his character on this forum very seriously and that's what he's called it, a character. He has fun with it, and that's fine. What I put on this forum is all me and I mean what I say. I joke around sometimes but I don't use the character to ever say thing I don't really think in real. Shallow is just the screen name. There is no difference in thoughts or opinions of Shallow and Peter Kosmas. I'm simply stating what I think of Thriller and MJ's music in general. To be honest even if I thought the production was great I'd still not think too highly of the songs. That's just what I think. I have no desire to make you change your tastes. I'm just expressing mine.


(One day I'll learn to apply my less is more feelings on production to my posts)

I see what you're saying, but I just really disagree with sayign MJ is like backstreet boys and that the broth of the songs is thin. alot of the music, especially on off the wall is just as textured and funky as Boz Scaggs, Chicago, Tower of Power, P funk, Quik, etc. other soulful funky people. I think because he is commercially succesful it's tempting to just pigeonhole him into pop, but the reality of the era that I'm talking about is that Michael Jackson's first two quincy jones albums are largely funk based and the same things I look for in g funk, i look for in his music which is popular in its crossover appeal and effectiveness but to say that makes the broth of the songs thin is rather biased. songs like PYT and OTW may not be deep in some somber way, but I'm just as impressed by songs that can melodically capture happiness and exuberance in a lighthearted way like much of MJ's work. the musicianship of most of his work is solid too, I feel saying it's just cheesy lyrics over a catchy tune is a supreme understatement. On a musical level what's so different about Off the wall from say, a 70's stevie wonder album you know? Given the actual merit of the work, I feel you are being dismissive of the work because of its extreme popularity while I do see(and never disagreed with) many of your points.

furthermore, I'd say more like if Bruce Springsteen is John Steinbeck, Michael Jackson is Oscar Wilde. MJ is not as candy/fad like as Dan Brown and that you said further leads me to believe you're understating dude by alot.

-T

Boz Scaggs and Chicago fine, but how fo you factor Parliament into that equation? Clinton lead such a raw all over the place musical attack. Chicago and MJ are more known for their straight forward tight tracks. I like Chicago, like I like MJ, but I'd never confuse either for Parliament or Tower. (Does Quik create anything funky or does he just sample funk?). There's no jamming on any MJ record. It's about as funk KC and the Sunshine Band or Justin Timberlake. And saying MJ sounds like Stevie musically is like saying Pat Boone sounds like Little Richard vocally. Boone was a safe happy go lucky sound meant to appease. Richard was a wild out of this world, raw sound meant to offend. Stevie can't touch Richard in that department but in his early to mid 70s he was very raw with his compostions. Pastime Paradise sounds nothing like anything MJ could ever do. Part Time Lover maybe, but not stuff on Innervisions and albums like it. It depends on which Stevie we'te talking about.

I don't call it thin because it was popular. I call it thin because it was thin. Sgt Peppers was popular. I wouldn't call that thin. In the same era that Thriller was in Born in the USA and Dancing in the Dark by Springsteen were both extremely popular and had high powered production but they still had a level of depth about them I can't find in MJ tracks. Born in the USA represented Reagan's America with harsh reality hidden in gluttonous style and power. It was "yeah we're Born in the USA let's pump our fists" but when looked at carefully in lyric you saw the pain and struggle of the forgotten and pushed aside. Even the synthesizer had this hidden sadness to it that 99% of the Yuppies that bought the album wouldn't realize or accept. I could write an 90 page thesis on that song. Dancing in the Dark in essence is about frustration. Frustration of the character in the song looking for connection and about frustration of the songwriter looking for a hit to appeaase his band and manager who felt the album was missing something. It's not just about a guy looking for a girl or sex, it's about a singer not being able to come to terms with his integrity. "This gun's for hire" like a prostitute, even if it's just "Dancing in the Dark". Here's your fucking hit song he says now leave me alone. Incredible depth for two of the biggest hit songs of the flashiest decade.

When I called MJ Dan Brown I meant lyrically. Wilde was an amazing writer, and the difference between Steinbeck and Wilde in writing is nothing like the difference between Bruce and Michael in lyrics.

[Tanjential]

lyric writing ability= song writing ability

I think your arguments rely heavily on the above premise^

-T

[LyRiCaL_G]

michael jackson is a muhfuckin legend, true one of a kind talent, amazing artist, one of the all time greats of any genre, his music has reached and has more replay value than most people, not only has he sold hella records, his shit has been downloaded for joke too, his shit is still recognized by kids and adults, his shit still gets luv in clubs....

Michael is a great, nuttin else worth reading

[Tanjential]

+1 lyrical g

shallow, talking with diverse cats like you is one of the things I like best about this board man. +1

-T

[MANBEARPIG.]

the Girl Is Mine


Off The Wall >> Thriller

[Tanjential]

I think off the wall is about as dope as thriller. but it's hard to say one's better than the other to me

-T

[Shallow]

lyric writing ability= song writing ability

I think your arguments rely heavily on the above premise^

-T

I don't quite get what you mean. Are you saying they are the same, or that they are equally important, or that I'm saying they are equally important?


For the record I wouldn'tconsider my points arguments. An argument would be trying to explain to you why I'm right. If you said welfare helps the poor in the long run the way it's set up in this society I would argue with you. Saying you love the Thriller album why I don't like it all that much isn't something I'd argue. I'm just giving my opinions on what I feel constitutes being good music.

[Tanjential]

i'm saying that's what it seemed to be what you're saying.

i think it takes alot of craft to express things through musical nuances in tone and melody as well as the words. alot of people interpret the sound of tracks like billie jean and wanna be startin somethin as very paranoid outcries and that reflects cold war mentality etc. too but because the lyrics involve sex/hint at sex at times it's shallow or poorer songwriting than springsteen?

the only thing I'm arguing with, really, is you saying MJ is like Bacstreet boys when in musical reality he is much closer to a marvin gaye, stevie wonder than he is a justin timberlake or a backstreet boys you know?

let me elaborate just a bit, the chronic is a pop album but it doesn't make it any less hardcore gangsta rap.

michael jackson late 70's early 80's at least was primarily a r and b, funk, wonder/tower/scaggz/gaye type dude. just cause his shit BLEW the fuck up doesn't strip it of its musical nature and place it squarely into the 'catchy but unsubstantial and popular music' category you know?

i'm sure it's not what you intend, but it just comes across as knockin' it cause it's so popular.

-T