On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:21:14 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 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.

Probably, I'll agree with 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.

Yeah, and at that particular time of my life, I was just a bit of a music 
snob, too - so I didn't really listen to anything that wasn't "Hemingway" 
when it came to music.  My tastes have broadened since then, but my 
recollections from listening to the local radio stations on the bus going 
to/from school growing up didn't play a lot of what I listen to now, 
either - so that's coloured my view.

> 	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).

Well, being prolific doesn't always equate to being good.  I've heard 
Mozart described as a pop star as well in his own time.  Just a question 
of taste, I suppose.  As for Jackson, I think there was a bit of 
manufactured stardom there, but to his credit, he was the manufacturer of 
that image - it wasn't the sort of manufactured stardom that is hoisted 
upon performers these days.

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

True.

> 	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.

Well, I didn't really follow the case closely (celebrity gossip/lives 
isn't something I'm into at all).  But I do think that there is an 
element of the human psyche that does put the two together - there are 
those who wouldn't listen to Wagner, either, because of his anti-
semitical views.  I can understand that - but like some with Jackson, I'm 
willing to overlook Wagner's personal views because I enjoy 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).

I think the artist's personality is reflected in their art - sometimes 
with subtlety, sometimes not.  But would, for example, Thriller have been 
as good in some people's minds if his personality hadn't been "bigger 
than life"?  I'd venture to say probably not.

>> 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.

I do as well - though there's something to be said for being able to 
evaluate a witness' character that you can't pull through a transcript.  
But a lot of court is theater (though not the way it's portrayed on TV, 
at least not in my experience as a juror).  But there should be a way to 
level the playing field so the focus is more on facts and less on 
personalities.  However, the jury's responsibility is to interpret facts 
by determining who's telling the truth and who's not, again something 
very difficult to pull from a piece of paper.

It might work better, though, if the identities of the defendant and 
those testifying were unknown, maybe obscured and voices modified.  You 
might want to know, for example, the background of the person testifying 
(ie, police officer vs. cellmate), but you'd have to include more about 
the person than is typically let in now - if a police officer has a 
history that's relevant to the case, that needs to be let in (often times 
I understand it isn't because it doesn't relate directly to the case in 
question).

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

I've not been to court other than as a juror or an observer (in a civil 
case for the latter), but it is a topic that has been an interest to me 
over the years, and probably will continue to be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message