Worst Michael Jackson Single

[Lucifer Sam]

i keep picturing someone who looks like aubrey beardsley going through all of michael jacksons videos until he comes upon the moment where michael says "chucka-chucka". it's quite funny!

I actually did have to sift through several videos before finding the golden nugget of "chucka-chucka." It was a stroll down Bad Music Memory Lane, but the videos were worthwhile for their absurdist & comedic value, and I have to credit his dance moves. Michael Jackson was a supremely talented dancer. He gives the impression of being weightless when he dances, and yet (all the more impressive) his choreography is anything but graceful and gliding: it's swift, choppy, and jagged. Each move bursts out like a switchblade. The dancing itself is commanding and menacing; you would probably want to keep your distance from someone with such fierce athleticism, but the "badness" he wanted to convey is ruined by all the festoonery and self-aggrandizing pomp. If his continued self-mutilation through plastic surgery is any indication, he was someone who was uncomfortable in his own skin (and the theory that he was perhaps subconsciously trying to become white is always interesting), but in the moments when he danced, he and his body were one.

 

[turbanus]

I actually did have to sift through several videos before finding the golden nugget of "chucka-chucka." It was a stroll down Bad Music Memory Lane, but the videos were worthwhile for their absurdist & comedic value, and I have to credit his dance moves. Michael Jackson was a supremely talented dancer. He gives the impression of being weightless when he dances, and yet (all the more impressive) his choreography is anything but graceful and gliding: it's swift, choppy, and jagged. Each move bursts out like a switchblade. The dancing itself is commanding and menacing; you would probably want to keep your distance from someone with such fierce athleticism, but the "badness" he wanted to convey is ruined by all the festoonery and self-aggrandizing pomp. If his continued self-mutilation through plastic surgery is any indication, he was someone who was uncomfortable in his own skin (and the theory that he was perhaps subconsciously trying to become white is always interesting), but in the moments when he danced, he and his body were one.

we know, bro. he's like, the most famous singer and dancer of the past 50 years believe it or not. but thanks for describing his dance moves for us just in case there's anyone here who's been living under a rock for the past 50 years (baz, possibly) and has never heard of him.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

we know, bro. he's like, the most famous singer and dancer of the past 50 years believe it or not. but thanks for describing his dance moves for us just in case there's anyone here who's been living under a rock for the past 50 years (baz, possibly) and has never heard of him.

I understand. I was just really impressed because I hate his music and had put him out of mind, but re-visiting his videos allowed me to reconsider him. I used to be critical of everything about Michael Jackson; I was just posting on the (minor) thrill of discovery, having changed my mind about his dancing. I had thought it clownish, now I don't. It's the theatrics that ruin it.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

I understand. I was just really impressed because I hate his music and had put him out of mind, but re-visiting his videos allowed me to reconsider him. I used to be critical of everything about Michael Jackson; I was just posting on the (minor) thrill of discovery, having changed my mind about his dancing. I had thought it clownish, now I don't. It's the theatrics that ruin it.

you're wrong about a lot of things, you know!!

 

[Fake C]

I don't think clownish is the word but once he reached his commercial peak with Thriller he seemed to lean more on spectacle and a few moves and vocal habits. It can have the positive effect that you immediately know who you're listening to even with a brand new song, but on the other hand it can make all of the music kind of sound alike.
This happens to other singers, too. If you look at Talking Heads career you might notice that David Byrne started to become more of a character. Not like David Bowie portraying different characters but more like this person "Michael Jackson" or this person "David Byrne" are no longer accessible to the public. If you watch or listen to them what they're presenting is this character that they live.
This happens to lots of celebrities especially the ones that become iconic. It is more apparent with some of them though.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

I don't think clownish is the word but once he reached his commercial peak with Thriller he seemed to lean more on spectacle and a few moves and vocal habits. It can have the positive effect that you immediately know who you're listening to even with a brand new song, but on the other hand it can make all of the music kind of sound alike.
This happens to other singers, too. If you look at Talking Heads career you might notice that David Byrne started to become more of a character. Not like David Bowie portraying different characters but more like this person "Michael Jackson" or this person "David Byrne" are no longer accessible to the public. If you watch or listen to them what they're presenting is this character that they live.
This happens to lots of celebrities especially the ones that become iconic. It is more apparent with some of them though.

that'll do, dave. nobody needs your pop culture commentary

 

[Fake C]

that'll do, dave. nobody needs your pop culture commentary

apparently you do because you can't stop reading and commenting.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

apparently you do because you can't stop reading and commenting.

"i know you are but what am i"

good job, dave

 

[Fake C]

And you're still reading and commenting.
Are you really this dumb or does your narcissistic personality disorder always cause you to conclude, delusionally, that you're incapable of error?

 

[Fake C]

You write a lot of stupid and ignorant comments and you seem so confident in them. I think it's a mixture of your condition and just not being very bright.

 

[Fake C]

I'm watching the goth Batman on HBO. It has taken me about four sessions so far and I'm halfway through. I do like the look. I think it's not bad in fifteen - twenty minute increments and maybe should have been presented that way to start with.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I don't think clownish is the word but once he reached his commercial peak with Thriller he seemed to lean more on spectacle and a few moves and vocal habits. It can have the positive effect that you immediately know who you're listening to even with a brand new song, but on the other hand it can make all of the music kind of sound alike.
This happens to other singers, too. If you look at Talking Heads career you might notice that David Byrne started to become more of a character. Not like David Bowie portraying different characters but more like this person "Michael Jackson" or this person "David Byrne" are no longer accessible to the public. If you watch or listen to them what they're presenting is this character that they live.
This happens to lots of celebrities especially the ones that become iconic. It is more apparent with some of them though.

I never followed Michael Jackson or Talking Heads, but I think the difference between David Byrne and Michael Jackson delineates Jackson's comparative clownishness. Even though Byrne wore the oversized suit and did the herky-jerky scarecrow dancing, the presentation seemed more artful than silly. Whereas Jackson's presentation always seemed painfully calculated to deify him, or make him the king, or the chief badass. It can of course be fascinating to watch how a massive eccentric like MJ conveys these archetypes, but that was always the comedy of it, even for those of us who didn't like him. The videos and music for Thriller were the first of his I ever heard, so if he was more subdued and focused before then, it wasn't on my radar.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

You write a lot of stupid and ignorant comments and you seem so confident in them. I think it's a mixture of your condition and just not being very bright.

That'll do dave-o, that'll do

 

[Fake C]

I never followed Michael Jackson or Talking Heads, but I think the difference between David Byrne and Michael Jackson delineates Jackson's comparative clownishness. Even though Byrne wore the oversized suit and did the herky-jerky scarecrow dancing, the presentation seemed more artful than silly. Whereas Jackson's presentation always seemed painfully calculated to deify him, or make him the king, or the chief badass. It can of course be fascinating to watch how a massive eccentric like MJ conveys these archetypes, but that was always the comedy of it, even for those of us who didn't like him. The videos and music for Thriller were the first of his I ever heard, so if he was more subdued and focused before then, it wasn't on my radar.

Both could be pretty silly but they were definitely using their public personas to promote different images and ideas. I found Byrne's ideas to be much more useful to me but I think that's the key really. There are people that do seem very attracted to the types of artists that deify themselves and maybe lots of us have gone through that at different stages of our personal development. When I discovered The Beatles as a kid, John Lennon was a larger than life figure and I was really surprised later when I learned of his flaws and issues, very common to men from his place and time.
With most artists now it's more about the art than the person behind it. They're able to channel something and a part of them may actually approach what we might think of as divine, but if you worship the person behind it you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed.
I'm sure for many Jackson provided an experience that helped them feel in touch with something greater and larger than life and that has value even though it definitely doesn't work for everyone.

 

[NealCassidy]

Young, Gifted and Black.

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

I think hanging out with George Michael would have been a lot more fun for sure. I think most of his songs are horrible but I like two of them.
Bonus George Michael fact: He is the subject of the Pet Shop Boys' song"Bet She's Not Your Girlfriend," and I'm pretty sure Neil Tennant is giving us a George Michael parody look in the video for "How Can You Expect To Be Taken Seriously?"





Chris Lowe still destroys though. He was the king of tongue in cheek street fashion. Neil has to be happy with a #YouTriedIt

Totally yes to everything

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Both could be pretty silly but they were definitely using their public personas to promote different images and ideas. I found Byrne's ideas to be much more useful to me but I think that's the key really. There are people that do seem very attracted to the types of artists that deify themselves and maybe lots of us have gone through that at different stages of our personal development. When I discovered The Beatles as a kid, John Lennon was a larger than life figure and I was really surprised later when I learned of his flaws and issues, very common to men from his place and time.
With most artists now it's more about the art than the person behind it. They're able to channel something and a part of them may actually approach what we might think of as divine, but if you worship the person behind it you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed.
I'm sure for many Jackson provided an experience that helped them feel in touch with something greater and larger than life and that has value even though it definitely doesn't work for everyone.

For me, it's a failure in the art that un-deifies an artist. Morrissey became fallible for me when Hulmerist came out and I saw the video for November Spawned a Monster. That should've been comedy (and doubtless it was for the Henry Rollinses of the world), but in my view it wasn't. I idolized John Lennon when I was a kid, too, but the disappointment wasn't Revolution 9; it was hearing Whatever Gets You Thru the Night.

I know what you mean about worship, though, and not wanting to be disappointed in the person. It's true that Lennon had some disgusting personal traits. Objectively speaking, Paul the vegetarian is better than John who wasn't, but my mind can't be pried from how godlike cool John appeared to me as an adolescent Beatlemaniac, in the old interviews and pictures. It's strange, but John, because he had the better songs and persona and aesthetics, is still somehow my favorite Beatle, even though Paul is ethically more righteous. Sometimes reason just doesn't compel, and coolness covers a multitude of sins. And that's a bit scary. Personally I can't see the appeal of a Donald Trump or a Michael Jackson or an Osho, but I understand the inability to think rationally when idolatry takes hold.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Though I do understand that Michael’s music isn’t to everyone’s taste, I do feel surprised when people describe it as ‘bad music’. To me it’s obvious that it’s mostly exquisitely produced and composed, and performed with a lot of heart and soul.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Though I do understand that Michael’s music isn’t to everyone’s taste, I do feel surprised when people describe it as ‘bad music’. To me it’s obvious that it’s mostly exquisitely produced and composed, and performed with a lot of heart and soul.

True, but couldn't you say the same thing about prog groups like Rush and Yes? They were technically virtuoso, and I think they put their hearts and souls into their music. Rush really did seem to believe in some libertarian Promethean vision, and the singer for Yes was probably sincere about his gooey New Age beliefs. Their music was slickly-polished, and sometimes had numbered movements structured like a symphony. But it's still (to me) profoundly bad. Should I be saying their music isn't to my taste? You raise a good point. It's probably a signifier of my own immaturity, but when I dislike music I tend to be impolite and dismissive about it, even when I could perhaps concede a few points.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

True, but couldn't you say the same thing about prog groups like Rush and Yes? They were technically virtuoso, and I think they put their hearts and souls into their music. Rush really did seem to believe in some libertarian Promethean vision, and the singer for Yes was probably sincere about his gooey New Age beliefs. Their music was slickly-polished, and sometimes had numbered movements structured like a symphony. But it's still (to me) profoundly bad. Should I be saying their music isn't to my taste? You raise a good point. It's probably a signifier of my own immaturity, but when I dislike music I tend to be impolite and dismissive about it, even when I could perhaps concede a few points.

I myself tend to refer to certain types of modern music, Coldplay, Sheeran, the blandest of the bland, you know, as bad music, so I’m really not better than anyone else.