EminemBase wrote:But that's the way it should be. Given what he does and how he does it, it's only right it should be that way. Like Gervais said - If you're doing anything right as an artist, you should assume as many people hate what you're doing as love it. Being safe, is not artistic. MJ is called an artist because he was very unique of course. He was an immortal dancer and was also involved with a lot of his visuals so in that sense he was an artist and it's what helped craft his iconic status.
But in terms of true artistry, with music; Eminem is the more reputable candidate for a legendary artist. MJ turned entertainment into an art. Eminem turns his thoughts into an art, he's been playing puppet master with the minds of millions for so long, to such a brilliant degree. He's much more impressive in that sense. What MJ did required a lot of practice but what Em does requires not only a lot of practice but consistent, individualistic, intellectual innovation. It's as good as your brain can make it. But what he does doesn't agree with everybody, it's not sugorcoated.
I agree that the nature of what Eminem does automatically means he won't get the same level of recognition (I basically said the same earlier in the thread), but I think you're underrating MJ's artistic merit by summing it up with his dancing ability/live performances/music videos. Your description of his artistry basically defines him as a more talented Usher or Chris Brown, and MJ would never put out some of the bullshit they do just to get a hit. The content of the music itself isn't
just entertainment for the sake of entertainment; if it was, then it wouldn't be so timeless. It would sell in its respective time period, appeal to the fads and sounds of that generation and then be more or less forgotten. You see and hear a lot of that on the radio today. As most people would agree to, there aren't many artists who could create a timeless melody like Michael Jackson, and that in its own right requires a lot of
thought. He's in the songwriter's hall of fame for a reason. And also, his music wasn't all safe topics (IE songs about love/girls). His material that delved into less common issues for a pop star admittedly doesn't get the same recognition as a Billie Jean or a Thriller... with a couple exceptions like Man In the Mirror, but if you really go through the music he made, he was a musical genius in pretty much every sense other than actually playing instruments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAi3dJIJwgIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gkCfz3cD_ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-WfTw20P-Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkQd4zOLnjc <-- this one's a lot more relevant now, aint it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6mWFsqh ... re=channelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfk1tAfTLvkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbzMsIcp6fIIn the end, though, I think Em and MJ are both geniuses in their respective craft, and their said crafts are crazily different from each other so the concept of pinning down who's a "truer artist" is lost on me. Chances are it'll conveniently end up being whichever one you're a bigger fan of. Yes, Eminem's music does fuck with people more, but if that alone was enough to make somebody better then Lady GaGa would be a running candidate for G.O.A.T, and certainly more of an "artist" than MJ.
Caution to the wind, complete freedom. Look at these rappers, how I treat 'em, so why the fuck would I join 'em when I beat 'em?