No shame here, CP. I was completely backing up the notion that Michael Jackson, with his Thriller and Beat It videos - and by extension his live show - clearly begat the era of spectacular "music" concerts where synchronized choreography takes precedent of the actual performing of the music. Maybe MJ wasn't lip-syncing, but most of the arena-filling performers that followed him did. And that's crap.

And I'm saying that as someone who respects Justin and counts himself a fan of Madonna and Beyonce.

Sorry for the "me too" post, but I have to agree with CP's post above. Just because it isn't something you like, doesn't automatically mean it is crap. MJ was very creative in not only his music, but in his performances as well. Although, it could easily be argued that much of his work was more evolutionary than revolutionary.

And the same could be said of Elvis: much of what he was doing was just mimicking what the "black" music scene was had been doing for a while (remember that the 50's were still a very racist time and blacks at the time were still vastly shunned in the entertainment business).

There is a fair amount of music out there that I don't care for, but I am still able to respect the artist (Dylan and Neil Young come to mind).

Up where?

I am mainly joking, but I don't really think of Paul Anka as a trailblazer/trendsetter. Yes, he was very popular and has been around for a while, but I never thought of him as all that unique (he does have an amazing voice though!).

Prince - very talented musician and song writer.

I agree.

Perhaps you posted this before you read my response to CP, which clarified my position.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as crap. I'd love a thread (not this one) which discusses the notion that quality is based on taste and therefore is completely subjective. (Hint: I'd take the opposing side)

I did - I was still composing when your post came up.

But I have to ask: are you are blaming (in this case) MJ for other similar acts that followed that are (in your opinion) crap? That doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility. Am I missing something?

Of course I'm not blaming Michael Jackson for the crap that he didn't do.

This is an example of a frustration I sometimes have with this kind of message board discussion.

GD said (in part) "MJ was more than a good performer that presented world-changing music and entertainment, he actually had a heavy personal hand in creating it, and in effecting the changes in the industry that followed in its wake."

I asked him for examples.

GD replied (in part) "The dominance since his career of acts like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Madonna, etc. They all draw from his style and music, in which he was a major creative component."

The conversation was (at that stage) about influence. If MJ gets assigned credit for the success of talents like Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Madonna etc, then I added to SL's response in which he said " was just about to say if the question is who had more of a bad influence on music, Michael Jackson wins hands down for all the synchronized back-up dancer heavy crap he begat.".

That's all.

I would say that the crown for biggest influence in creating modern music would go to Thomas Edison or Marconi (or Tesla if you want to have that argument).

But to the extent I care, I'll take Elvis over The Beatles or Michael Jackson (but only because unlike the others he's never annoying and always pretty easy to ignore as background noise).

Chicago rules! - everything else is crap... ;)

Good point, wish I'd said as much.

No snark here. I know you said that. But you also used the verb "create" a bunch, too. Feel free to replace "innovate" with "create" in my response.

Elvis made sleeping with little girls ok.
Michael made sleeping with little boys ok.

MJ pushed the envelope farther.