Good Riddance, MJ

[Trippyhippy]

Technically speaking, one's voice can be and is considered an instrument.

Then everyone that can speak should be considered a musician.

He was a singer/entertainer, there are a lot of them out there. This is just getting into semantics now.

An argument of semantics occurs when someone uses a word in a way that they don't mean. Like if I called a table a chair. You could argue that you could sit on it, and they go together, so calling it a chair is just as good.

But that is the beauty of the English language. It is descriptive. You can elaborate almost endlessly on any statement you want to make. MJ was an entertainer. He falls in with that group of people that pretend to be musicians but at the end of the day, they can't tell an A from a G. Example Britney Spears, Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys.

It's just shitty pop music.

Those of you saying he's not a pedo because he was acquitted and all that...

Jackson is a textbook pedophile, a 46-year-old predator who plied children with alcohol. A man who gave boys nicknames like Doo Doo Head and Blowhole and then quizzed them about whether they masturbated and if "white stuff" came out. A man who conducted drinking games with minors and surfed porn with them on a laptop in his bedroom, noting that if anyone asked what they were looking at, the kids should just say they were watching "The Simpsons." A man who frequently talked sex with his little companions and explained that "boys have to masturbate or they go crazy." A man who told one pajama-clad boy that he wanted to show him how to "jack off." When the tipsy child declined the demonstration, Jackson announced, "I'll do it for you," and buried his hand in the boy's Hanes briefs, size small. And a man who emphasized to his little friends that these activities were "their little secret" and should not be disclosed to anyone, even if a gun was at their head.

Maybe some of you don't think child molesting is as awful as I do. Maybe you don't think $20 million was a big deal to MJ because it was a drop in the bucket. I know one thing though. I'd rot in jail for the rest of my life before I would offer to settle for 1 cent if I was innocent AND could afford the best lawyers in existence.

So yes Michael Jackson was innocent. So was OJ. So Was Roman Polanski. So was Phil Spector. Just ask Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

[Bluefrost]

Then everyone that can speak should be considered a musician.

Everyone who's a singer, yes; talking doesn't require talent. But I do agree with you, I wouldn't consider a singer an instrumentalist -- I would consider them a singer.

 

[Valandil]

Everyone who's a singer, yes; talking doesn't require talent. But I do agree with you, I wouldn't consider a singer an instrumentalist -- I would consider them a singer.

Would you consider a rhetorician, a TRUE rhetorician--not the political wannabe rhetoricians that we're plagued with, a musician? I ask because rhetoric grew directly out of poetry and the "court bard" notion a la Homer.

 

[Grandphoenix]

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/hi...about-escapism-on-previously-unreleased-song/

 

[Mirewen]

First of all, your voice is an instrument when singing. Mire, I'm surprised you didn't say that, you kinda made by pointing out you don't like Madonnas though.

I didn't because, like I said, its semantics. I'm not going to agrue over semantics because it is an exercise in futility.

 

[Bluefrost]

Would you consider a rhetorician, a TRUE rhetorician--not the political wannabe rhetoricians that we're plagued with, a musician? I ask because rhetoric grew directly out of poetry and the "court bard" notion a la Homer.

If they don't sing, why would I consider them a singer? Poems are generally recited, not sung.

Unless I am completely missing the point, can you please explain further?

 

[Morcheeba]

If they don't sing, why would I consider them a singer? Poems are generally recited, not sung.

Unless I am completely missing the point, can you please explain further?

Maybe he/she means because they recite lyrics..? idk, it doesn't make sense to me.

For all those that seem confused by how one's voice is an instrument... listen up

it takes TALENT and SKILL to sing wonderfully, and to be respected as a fantastic singer, singers are musicians. Their voice is the instrument.

Anyone can argue that til you're blue in the face it's not going to change the fact that a singer is a musician. A guitarist may not be able to hold a note and a singer may not be able to play a chord it doesn't lessen either ones talent or make them any less a musician.

 

[Valandil]

If they don't sing, why would I consider them a singer? Poems are generally recited, not sung.

Unless I am completely missing the point, can you please explain further?

ENGLISH poetry is recited, all other forms of poetry are sung. Meter, mode, etc all come out of poetry. Rhetoric, specifically ancient rhetoric is also a performance of sorts by someone using their voice as an instrument. There are very specific rules, dos/don'ts, meter, etc involved in true rhetoric. Rhetorical oratory is very much a performance which is why I ask if you would consider a rhetorician to be a "musician." If you need some elaboration I recommend checking out Demosthenes, Aristotle, and Cicero's remarks on the art of rhetoric.

 

[Morcheeba]

Again that's simple. If their purpose is not to make music using their voice than they are not a musician.

Listen to any singer that can complete a song with only their vocals, not music no production just their voice as the instrument. That is a musician.

I have heard plently of singers that would sit center stage and just belt out some tune, no need for any background music as it would just destroy the emotion emitted from the singing alone. That is a musician.

If people honestly think that a remarkable singer that can carry a song to a place that no background music could ever assist with is nothing but a performer.. well I feel sorry for you.

 

[Bluefrost]

ENGLISH poetry is recited, all other forms of poetry are sung. Meter, mode, etc all come out of poetry. Rhetoric, specifically ancient rhetoric is also a performance of sorts by someone using their voice as an instrument. There are very specific rules, dos/don'ts, meter, etc involved in true rhetoric. Rhetorical oratory is very much a performance which is why I ask if you would consider a rhetorician to be a "musician." If you need some elaboration I recommend checking out Demosthenes, Aristotle, and Cicero's remarks on the art of rhetoric.

So do you expect me to be held responsible for the definition of who's a singer? Please don't argue semantics with me, I have no desire on studying English poetry or any other types of poetry, or music. All I said is that in many cases, your voice can be considered an instrument. If you want to consider a rhetorician a musician, then be my guest.

 

[Mirewen]

This is why I didn't mention it lol. Once people start losing an argument, they will try pinning you with something else even when it doesn't pertain to the original discussion.

 

[Eilistrae]

sing: produce tones with the voice; to make melodious sounds with the voice

mystery solved.

 

[Myrrh]

Him dying doesn't really bother me at all. I never liked or hated him.

 

[Morcheeba]

sing: produce tones with the voice; to make melodious sounds with the voice

mystery solved.

Musician;

• someone who plays a musical instrument (as a profession)
• artist who composes or conducts music as a profession

 

[Tomasello]

Popped in my head, out of the blue, today. So I thought I'd share my little ode:

There once was a man name Jacko.
Who slowly turned into a psycho.
He'd lure kids in with a smile,
because he was a dirty pedophile.
Rot in hell you perverted sick wacko!

 

[Tristam Green]

Well there was a Billy Mays thread.. and his accomplishments were... umm.. not worth mentioning in my opinion. That didn't stop a lot of QCDN members in participating in the thread. So what's the difference?

Difference is that with Billy's death, there *were* LOADS of QCDN fans who lauded his comedy and zest for selling while he was alive - myself and Koenigstiger included. Hell, I think the two of us were QCDN's Billy Club (hyuk).

Michael Jackson? There were more threads written about Britney Spears by fake Japanese otaku than there were about MJ in the HIStory of QCDN, right up to the moment he kicked off.

 

[Mirewen]

I think she meant overall in history, Billy Mays wont really be remembered that long. (Don't get mad at me, I liked the infomercials too)

 

[Tristam Green]

I think she meant overall in history, Billy Mays wont really be remembered that long. (Don't get mad at me, I liked the infomercials too)

I'm not - I was only outlining it in QCDN terms. Sure, Jacko will be remembered longer if only because of his fame or notoriety, based on whatever you want to classify it.

However, in relation to Pomp's post, there were FAR more active Billy Mays fans on this site before his death than there were Jackson fans prior to his (by all accounts)

 

[Mirewen]

Ah well yes, on this site. I was thinking more globally lol.

 

[Morcheeba]

However, in relation to Pomp's post, there were FAR more active Billy Mays fans on this site before his death than there were Jackson fans prior to his (by all accounts)

What is your conclusion drawn from? The number of threads specifically geared towards MJ or Billy Mays? If that's the basis well Trist, it's a poor one.

People do not have to actively post anything about anyone they admire or idolize, respect or just plain adore to be a true fan. I won't disagree there are a lot of people who just aboard each time something new and shiny is presented. But that's not to say there aren't a lot who genuinely feel the way they do. And to basically call a large group of people phony because they did only post after a death is pretty low.

How simplistic do y'all think? I mean seriously. If you can't understand that some people just don't feel the need to post threads or make full blown discussions than you are simple.

Perhaps I never thought to compose a thread for MJ or MJ fans simply because I didn't want to see and subject myself to any of the filthy and nasty things people tend to say on these forums. And why should I? And for that matter why should anyone else?

Shit. Think about it.

Just sayin.

E- and just to really make this stick, if it's going to what-so-ever, if anyone were to call me a faux-fan of lets say Dimebag Darryl or Pantera even having never made a discussion for them/him they would be sadly mistaken. And I would say some pretty nasty things right here about what it would make me feel to do, I won't. But I'll have you ALL know, personally, I haven't dedicated a thread to any of the artists I am a die hard of fan.