On 06/27/09 22:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now as to whether MJ was a genius or not, well, personally, I don't think
> so.  His music always struck me as rubbish pop.  But that's just my

	Well, he was quite a skillful performer in terms of his dance moves. 
I'd wager he'd be much less known and much less remembered if not for that.

	As for his songs, it's really a matter of taste. At a certain level, 
pop music simply cannot be taken very seriously. It's kind of like 
comparing Stephen King with Ernest Hemingway.

	Obviously, it wasn't all _his_ success. I'm guessing he didn't write 
many of his songs (just a guess - don't really know), and there's a 
whole team involved (music video, music, etc).

	But then again, I think he does deserve quite a bit of "credit". I 
don't think he was simply a manufactured star as some others have been. 
His output was more successful than just about anyone of his time, and 
he maintained that success for about 25 years. You do have to be someone 
special to achieve that. And to a large extent, his music was unique (at 
least within the pop genre).

	You don't have to like him or his music to appreciate that.

> I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the personality
> hadn't been in the courtroom or somehow the jury were unaware that that
> was the case they were hearing.

	Speculation can always run rampant. People question whether he would 
have been accused had he not been who he was.

	I didn't follow the case, so I don't know the details. I guess I could 
go read about it on Wikipedia. But I do agree with (one of) Warp's 
points: Being guilty won't make me not appreciate his music. I might 
have not bought any of his merchandise (not that he had any since then) 
because I wouldn't want any of my money going to him, but I wouldn't 
just stop listening to his music.

	There are actually quite a few famous people whose personality I 
dislike or even despise, but I still like the work that they're famous 
for (which, obviously, is not related to their personality).

> Indeed it would be interesting to see how trials would be conducted if
> the defendant (and witnesses too, for that matter) were sequestered from
> the jury so the jury didn't know who they were.  It would be difficult to
> do, no doubt, but might make an interesting experiment in jurisprudence.

	Double blind test? Doesn't sound like a bad idea. In fact, I've often 
felt (perhaps even stated on this newsgroup) that I don't like the 
notion that jurors can see and hear the witnesses directly. I think it's 
too likely that they'll be swayed by emotions than by facts. They should 
just read the transcripts.

	But then again, I've never been to court (fortunately?), so I'm just 
arguing from my armchair.

-- 
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message