Have you ever played a cocktail version of any Michael Jackson tune? I have never heard any song of his played as a nice cocktail piano ballad.

Also, did he ever write his own songs? I always assumed he performed songs others had written or that there were ghost writers.

Yea, I use to do "I can't help it" from Off the Wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klja3RBVXis

"Ben." Only people of a certain age recognize it, but those few that do often make a crack about how funny it is that it's about a rat.

Larry.

"I Can't Help It" is by Stevie Wonder
It's in New Real Book Vol 3 - Chuck Sher

What about the one(s) that Miles Davis did in the 80's? Sorry I don't recall the name.

Human Nature

Although Gordy/West/Davis/Hutch wrote it, the most poignant IMO is "I'll Be There." I've played it the last couple of nights & it resonates.

Human Nature
Rock With You
Lady In My Life
She's Out Of My Life
Baby Be Mine
Man In The Mirror
Thriller

I believe Michael's writing credits are genuine. The songs he's credited for (Billie Jean, Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Wanna Be Startin' Something, Another Part Of Me, Bad) all have a distinctive rhythm that could only be MJ.

Me too, back in early 80's! Maybe I should dust off my old chart of that, and play it tonight.

I'm not privy to anything but would guess he had help with realizing those also...maybe not.

Those albums are all MJ. Even Q says so. And you can tell, Q's own albums sound very different. Sophisticated, but very safe and not daring.
Mike brings the youth and pizzaz. I have a recording of MJ's home studio demo of "Billy Jean". The whole thing is there, but rough.
He wrote a lot of his own songs, including some of the biggest hits.


Don't stop til you get enough, Working Day and Night, Wanna be startin somethin, The Girl is mine, Beat it, Billy Jean and most of the songs on the Bad and Dangerous albums were written by Mike.

I used to do instrumental versions of "Lady in my life" and "Human nature" with my trio.

Many of his songs had very affecting melodies & not just the ballads, so they could stand on their own as songs with simple accompaniment, I think.
As to his instrumental abilities, leet's remember that a person can compose not just lyrics but tunes, harmonies & rhythms without being a particularly skilled player.
While none of us (except maybe Geoff Grace) can speak to MJ's actul involvement in composing his material, I suspect he was involved as much as most pop artists.

It is not unusual for some to take credit for work done by others. It's also not unusual for successful artists to be accused of doing so when they're innocent. Nor is it unusual for producers to often define a recording far beyond what the writer did.

It's come to my attention, through some postings over at Anterton's SSS/HC that apparently there's a wealth of vid clips of MJ depositions in such cases, some of which include footage of him singing unaccompanied. It sounds as though he had consistent, maybe "perfect" pitch & also he demonstrates a talent for "beat boxing" that equals what I've heard from anyone else. I think it's clearly possible that he could have done anything with which he's credited.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz0wrkOT-4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKrZisT80LY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5he8XQC...PL&index=61

Ian's suggestions are all good. I've heard most of those done in a cocktail setting and they have enough room for expression to be recognisable, intimate, and creatively inspiring.

Can't think of any additional ones to add the the list right now.

I'll risk a copyright infringement case and have posted MJ's home recording of "Billy Jean" here:

http://www.divshare.com/download/7769635-b44

If you love the Linndrum, this is for you

I'll see if I can put up an interview with Q about Thriller as well.

no disrespect intended but honestly the above examples don't help, what makes you think that Billy Jean demo (the music track) was done alone?

Michael was fantastic but IMO, with the bit of knowledge I do have, his general musical talent and songwriting abilities are and have always been blown out of proportion.

If you guys want to give examples to prove me wrong feel free but it's not necessary. I don't feel it takes anything away from how great he was for me to have this opinion.

Some of this gets into the ever present grey areas of what is writing and what is arrangement...especially in pop music.

I don't think he played the guitar on that demo, but I do think it amply demonstrates that the music is his vision entirely.

There's a certain signature sound and rhythm to the stuff that he writes, very different from Rod Temperton's stuff, which is sweeter and more sophisticated, but lack Mike's "hip&cool", if you will.

I don't find those MJ depositions all that convincing, his credibilty is always questionable in my mind. I think he may have wanted people to think he wrote the songs, for his ego's sake.

What do you know that we don't, Steve? Come on, out with it!

I shouldn't have entered this conversation really and don't want to go any further with it. I'll just say I've been in LA since 1986 and have worked with a lot of people who worked with or near Michael. Some of the people were bitter for things that were there own fault, some not so much, some just unreliable people in general, some very reliable. None of the related facts or rumors are worth publishing on a public forum but the accumulation of all has helped me form some opinions. It's not a big deal to me either way, I've never been a huge MJ fan but I dig a lot of the music, love some of it and recognize how important he was.

I retire from this thread.

MJ was a Motown kid. When you work with the likes of Berry Gordy, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross, Marvin Gaye, and the Funk Brothers I'd think some of the mechanics of writing tunes and making records is bound to rub off. At the very least I get the impression that he knew how to get an idea down and describe how he wanted those ideas fleshed-out to the people working with him. That suggests MJ had much skill as many others with "songwriter" credits. Musical genius? I think that's gilding the lily.

I think he was a good entertainer/singer. I don't think he really wrote much of any of the tunes, but of course he claimed he did.

Greatest dancer? He stole from James Brown, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, the Nicholas Brothers etc. I think he "stole" from the best songwriters, as well, and arranged them into songs he claims he wrote.

"I get paid a lot of money to not tell you who I write for."

- L.A. Ghostwriter

You mean it might have started as a vocal over piano and someone was hired to do a simple bass synth, synth chords, and drum beat? After several scratch vocals another synth line is added, the drum beat fussed with and then someone comes in to add a then ubiquitous Niles Rogers style chicken scratch guitar? Maybe another pass on vocals and lyrics and it's then polished enough to copyright and pass on to Quincy Jones?

Yeah, that's right. Just today I was listening to the radio, and you know what? All the hit songs used the same 12 notes that I always use. Where's my lawyer, I'm going to sue somebody...



--Dave

I know I said I retire but I'll respond quickly to this.

To me, without really knowing, it seems like Michael was hanging with someone who plays. Michael chooses a drum machine preset and beat boxes the parts. Dude in the studio plays keyboard parts to match what Michael's conveying (like the Bass line and keyboard parts or were they inspired by Michael's beatbox?). Dude in the studio plays the guitar part (or someone is hired to add guitar). Michael starts singing his melody and the keyboard player harmonizes it (Bridge).

I would argue that all the best artists steal from others and make what they steal their own.

I expect Keyboard magazine will shed some light on Michael song writing in an up coming issue. They have covered him in the past, and I remember from a Keyboard magazine issue in past (80's) stating that Michael wrote most of the songs, maybe all for the Thriller Album. He had multitrack the parts, wrote the words, and the singing. All Quincy Jones had to do was hire the good musicians and add his producing touches. Also the Thriller album was mostly an all keyboard album except for the drums and the t guitar solo in Beat It.

Michael had a narcissistic personality, he was vain, manipulative, had a huge ego, and was very concerned about his public image. I suspect he relied on ghost writers and worked to propagate the myth that he wrote his own material, like many of his heros who actually did write their own songs such as Stevie Wonder and The Beatles.

Jackson write four of the songs on Thriller: Beat It, Billy Jean, Wanne Be Startin Something and The Girl is Mine.

On the earlier 'Off the Wall' Jackson wrote two tracks: 'She's out of my Life' and the album track 'Workin' Day and Night'.

While demos were multi-tracked that doesn't mean Jackson performed them or that the demos were the first versions of any of the songs some of which were kicking around for a few years.

As Wikipedia puts it: 'Jackson claimed that when the melody of "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" came to him, he couldn't shake it off. He found himself humming and singing it whilst walking through the Jacksons' Encino home. As Michael could not play, he had his brother Randy perform the melody on a piano in the family's recording studio.'

(Ok, this could start an interesting conversation.)

Premise: It all depends on what your definition of "songwriting" is. If a vocalist who doesn't play any instruments sings a melodic line to a keyboardist who then harmonizes it, is the vocalist a songwriter?

My own personal response would be that it depends how much of a contribution the vocalist made to the song. Only those present at the time would know how much of a real contribution MJ made.

All that said, I loved Michael's vocals in his Jackson 5 era, and loved "Off The Wall" for Q's production. MJ was a great entertainer and I'm happy to leave it at that. I hope he finds peace in the hereafter, because he certainly didn't have any here on Earth...

You're wrong. I don't know where your animosity towards MJ comes from, but he has certainly written the songs I mentioned earlier.
He has a readily identifiable style that is uniquely his own. His songs are harmonically simple, but his sense of rhythm and the way he phrases is what sets his stuff apart from the rest.
Who could write something like "Wanna be startin'something"? That's just all him.

+1 Dave. I do not know of any artist--singer, dancer, musician, or otherwise--that hasn't "stole" (if that's the word you want to use) from those that have come before them. Whether that be from the organist that you hear once a week at your church, or those lengedary dancers that moj named, "stealing" is how we ALL learn to perform. I mean do you think that James Brown or Fred Astaire came out of the womb moving their feet they way they did? Or do you think they had influences that they learned and stole from? I'd guess the latter. And it certainly doesn't (nor should it) stop them from being amongst the greatest dancers! IMO, it's all about what you can add to the things you've stolen, and whether or not you can develop your own identity as a performer. And I certainly don't think you can deny that MJ succeeded at doing just that!

Since none of us were there or involved, that's an impossibility , of course.
I refer back to my earlier point that composing melodies, harmonies, etc., doesn't require particularly adept instrumental skills, or even instrumental skills at all.
Of course, MJ had some very skilled collaborators & in hot-house cretaive situations I doubt many are keeping exact notes on the development of everything.
It's unlikely they're gonna parse all this for us.

There's a similar debate occuring on another forum.
I find it interesting that a comparable team effort (The Beatles), has not been the subject of such speculation, that I've known.
For instance, did John Lennon compose "I Am The Walrus" or, by dint of his arranging & orchestration, did George Martin?


Your first sentence's not untrue but is only one side of things.
I suspect no one will dissuade you from the opinion expressed in the second, eh?
Again, none of us know.
Given that, why would it be so important to insist he couldn't have done any of this?

Which isn't really all that different from what Paul Simon did for some of his collaborative albums (e.g., Graceland). Mechanically different, yes, and in Simon's case, we *know* the dude can pen his own tunes.

I suspect that MJ was the core inspiration for the tunes he's credited with, and that others helped, but without MJ it would not have been at all, whereas with another this-or-that player, it might have been much the same.

I'm trying to remember who I just saw on TV saying MJ was an intuitive genius with melody, harmony, and rhythm. Might have been QJ. I'd sure like to hear someone like him say that about me!

But, I have no information or knowledge; just guessing. No doubt there's a number of different sides to the "truth" here.

A singer can pretty much get away with a sparse acoustic guitar or piano accompaniment and claim songwriting credits even if the chords are derived by another from the melody line. The rest is production or arrangement or performance. We've seen the court rule in favor of others in cases where there were material changes to the lyrics, melody, and less frequently when the song has a signature musical hook.

If Jackson has the Billy Jean demo with just the four moving chords in the verses and the bridge sections that's enough to create a polished demo from. Asking someone to create a funky arpegiated bass line from the chords and then selecting and refining a part on a Linndrum doesn't make that person the composer.

Listening to the 'Wanna be Starting Something' demo and it's pretty easy to see how little Michael could have contributed to the demo arrangement and still be considered the composer. The signature riff is just a variant of the chorus vocal. It's clearly not the first generation of the demo and was reworked over time.

That's not a slight: MJ worked in one of the most successful studio machines in the world at Motown and knew the ropes and how to get the job done from a skeleton demo with vocal and piano to world class production including the many interim steps.

To extend what I mentioned earlier, in the realm of modern music production (or honestly even something not heavily "produced"), there are many respected composers who've sometimes drifted afield of what seems to be a particularly stringent----but not improper (I'd like everyone to get proper notice)---definition of composer.

(1) Back to the Beatles. George Harrison's "Taxman" has at least one verse by John Lennon & the song's built on a bass/drums construct developed by Paul McCartney, who also plays the lead guitar solo. Who wrote that song?

(2)Many of Miles Davis's records are constructed from very brief sketches, sometimes by MD, sometimes by bandmembers like Bill Evans (often called before a session & asked to bring in ideas).
These were then elaborated & improvised on by the ensemble. Who composed that music? Miles Davis ?
When Teo Macero took a 30~60 minute tape of collective improv by Miles's bands (which was more often than not the case)& edited it into a semi-coherent piece of music, who composed that? Davis, the ensemble or Macero?


(3) Session musicians regularly develop & contribute ideas to records under an idea called "work for hire". These often are the hooks of the record but they get no credit as composer.

I forget who, but somebody famous once said that "Genius is but theft undetected".

First, I'm no big MJ fan And I could care less about dancing, but he was easily one of the greatest dancers ever maybe the best. No less than Fred Astaire famously declared MJ "the best dancer he'd ever seen". Everybody borrows from those who came before. Some never go any further. MJ certainly went way further and built a unique style.



No kidding. We frequently come up with parts, intros new chords to the bridge, etc. But that doesn't begin to mean we are the writers. It's our job to make the record as good as we can.
As a Session musician and a songwriter, I know there's a difference, and it has to do with having the idea in the first place. Songs are born between your ears. Everything else is dressing.

Stravinsky once said "Good composers borrow. Great composers steal".

That pretty much defines 75% of the so called "artists" I've dealt with for 30 yrs. in this town.

About MJ composing capability, check this out at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5he8XQCBw&feature=PlayList&p=1CB5FB96EC713ABF&index=61

In my opinion, MJ's style of dancing was adolesent and overrated. I don't consider him in the same category of dance greatness as Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly. One of his worst dance moments was that that choreographed crotch grab after he smashed a car windshield in some video, simply bad taste. Jackson has been passe for the past 20 years.

Considering he really hasn't had much in the way of output for the past 20 years, I don't see where this is a relevant statement.

When I lived in Russia, they had a saying - 'say good things or nothing about dead'. I think it's a good saying.

If I remember my Gogol correctly, the dead can vote in Russia.

That's quite an honor.

I thought he had some pretty cool moves, but what do I know, I'm a musician not a dancer... It would be interesting if this was a forum of jazz dance, or ballet, and people were commenting on his dance skills; that would be some interesting reading. You know how when non musicians talk about who is better, Eric Clapton or the guy from Phish, and you might be tempted to say, what about Pat Metheny, and they go, who? They know who they like, but they don't really know enough to actually judge who is better, and they get confused by things like the style of music, the person's looks, etc. Having not actually studied the field, they just know the most famous people in the commercial end of the field.

Not to take anything away from anybody, just I feel that if I studied dance for 10 or 20 years, and had 100's of friends who also had, and we made our livings dancing for the last 20 years, then I would have a better opinion.

Sounds like you knew him very well. If you don't mind sharing, when did you guys first meet and what was the nature of your relationship - just a bit curious about the real man behind the media hype.

What's with the acrimony, dude? Anybody with even half a brain can see that his influence on modern dance is inestimable. FWIW, Fred Astaire himself considered MJ to be the greatest dancer of the 20th century.

And you don't believe that he wrote his own songs, you think he had a f'd up personality, what's with the hating? Or did you know him personally? Did he screw you over?

OK, basically depending on the strength of the melody (if it's a complete idea that can be harmonized/arranged and performed) it is songwriting. The more others add to it, the more it may be considered co-writing, but it's composing on some level.

I think MJ had a natural ability to hear melody - he seemed to get a whole song in his head melodically and rhythmically, and could put it to lyrics. IOW, a "songwriter". How much was co-written by others I wouldn't know, and we also know he performed other people's music that he didn't claim to have written.

Then he was a good singer and dancer, and the rest was showmanship and production. I didn't care for the effects, the vulgarities or the hype at all.

I wasn't an MJ fan, but on one level I liked what he did. It was the immediacy of the energy and intent that made it work, like any type of music. He captured the groove and imagination of the culture of the moment, the same as the Beatles and Elvis.

That really isn't so much about 'music' as it is tapping into a concept that becomes part of an era's identity and collective memory. I think this is what made him - the music was one part, but the right timing, exposure and attitude found a niche. To pull that off, besides promotion, the music had to have some honesty to connect so well to the public. I think it was sincere music, but connecting to the masses also requires it be limited by default, so it becomes more about the phenomenon created out of celebrity.

Now having 'defended' him, I don't own any MJ recordings or plan to. For a top entertainer he had his own musical relevance, but I can't see him in the same light as deeper artists like Miles Davis or even Frank Sinatra or Stevie Wonder, or those whose music made impact without such tremendous hype.

...you don't have to go back to Astaire or Kelly.

Sammy Davis, JR. could out-dance (not to mention out-sing) Jackson without
relying on fog machines, chorus lines or, vulgarity...

SK's post is excellent.

It never ceases to amaze me how little 'musicians' really understand about making music especially on a popular level.

MJ was a songwriter and composer. He was fortunate enough to work with a team of folks who could bring his vision to fruition.

Beyond the talent of the artist, it still takes a variety of 'players' to make records in many cases.

For those of you that are bad-mouthing Michael Jackson's dancing ability, I remember reading some years ago what Fred Astaire had to say about Michael's dancing when he was interviewed.

Paraphrasing but it went something like this:

"That man can DANCE!".

I think Fred Astaire knew more about dancing than the sum total of all us could ever wish to know. I say, knock off the bad mouthing of something you know nothing about.

Mike T.

SK and ProfD have this covered, but plain and simple, based on the US Copyright Office definition, a song is lyrics set to melody. Anything else associated with a song, I suppose, may be considered arrangement. (When you take a standard and reharmonize it you don't call it composing, do you?) Compositions (music without lyrics) are different, of course.

Without going into it, a lot of songs were created before music notation was standardized. Some cultures still use more of an "oral tradition" to pass on songs, even newly written songs. And here's something to chew on. One musician in this culture today could not imagine an instrumentalist who was not a singer first. (Because your voice is how you communicate musical ideas.)

I don't have any problem calling MJ a songwriter.

In a band situation it is not uncommon to write songs as a group; as collaborators. Typically the rhythm section does not get songwriting credit unless their contribution is significant (or the "real" songwriters feel benevolent). So a lot of bands continue the tradition of the lyricist and composer team, e.g. Plant and Page (Led Zeppelin). Some of their songs are Plant/Page/Jones, when Jones had more input, and I believe the entire first album was credited to all four members (which was probably more of a business agreement than actual songwriting effort). [When you consider how singular a drummer Bonham was, though, perhaps he should have received more songwriting credit as a collaborator than he got?]

Yes, I believe musicians should strive to learn their art, and that includes learning music theory and standard notation. Lacking those skills, though, does not preclude one from being a songwriter, or even writing hit songs.

Eric,

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. But official or not, I would argue that in some songs, the chord progression plays an important enough role to qualify for a share of the songwriting credit. Mind you, I'm not talking about reharms or rearrangments of pre-existing songs. In my view, the "official" definiton is deficient in that regard.

Yes, I believe musicians should strive to learn their art, and that includes learning music theory and standard notation. Lacking those skills, though, does not preclude one from being a songwriter, or even writing hit songs.

I agree, but it does give credence to those individuals who, for whatever reason, refuse to learn the accepted notational language of music.

... MJ didn't learn how to notate music and he earned hundreds of millions of dollars, why should I bother to learn?

I watched that video and I would assume MJ wrote his songs exactly in that manner - singing his ideas into a cassette recorder. I hope the guy doing the transcribing and the orchestrating got paid well.

Well, it's interesting; the copyright definition of song writing is specific but broad, while I was considering it from the process of composing. Anyone can send in the proper form and fee and claim to be a songwriter.

When I was too young and dumb to get a copyright, one of my tunes made it to the bottom of the top 40 charts on another person's name. I wasn't aware of my rights at the time, and I wasn't proud of the tune either. So I was actually glad when it fell off the charts.

Do tell...

'Popcorn'? 'Tiny Dancer'? 'Macarena'??

*moved*

I was about to confess, but ... Now that I think about it, I should just take credit for all of those. Maybe throw in 'NY, NY' and 'Tequila' too, or 'I Write The Songs'.

Didn't Mike cowrite "We Are The World" with Lionel Richie?

I seriously doubt that Lionel would share credit so publicly if he'd done all the work. Especially when that was done at or near the height of his career.

I know tons of "little" musicians who could mop the floor with "big" musicians.

I think one would have to take it on a case-by-case basis. I've never worked with the Spice Girls, but I am taking an educated guess that a few of them lied about their advanced degrees from Juilliard and Berklee. Ashlee Simpson might think a chordal inversion is connected to a spark plug. Her sister might think a Diminished sixth is something that happens when you lose weight from throwing up. I'm guessing that some of the Boy bands didnt get into many arguments over the use of deceptice cadences, or quantizing at 100% instead of humanizing or randomizing.

There's a nice thread on Gearsluts right now where Robmix is telling MJ stories.. He goes into great detail about MJ's songwriting ability being demonstated.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/401331-robmix-tell-us-about-mj.html

It may seem overly persistent to repeat this but I think these questions bear consideration, so I take the risk...

--------------------------------------------------------
[Originally Posted By: Jazz+
Michael had a narcissistic personality, he was vain, manipulative, had a huge ego, and was very concerned about his public image. I suspect he relied on ghost writers and worked to propagate the myth that he wrote his own material, like many of his heros who actually did write their own songs such as Stevie Wonder and The Beatles.]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first sentence's not untrue but is only one side of things.
I suspect no one will dissuade you from the opinion expressed in the second, eh?
Again, none of us know.
Given that, why would it be so important to insist he couldn't have done any of this? [*]

I find it interesting that a comparable team effort (The Beatles), has not been the subject of such speculation, that I've known.
For instance, did John Lennon compose "I Am The Walrus" or, by dint of his arranging & orchestration, did George Martin?

In the realm of modern music production (or honestly even something not heavily "produced"), there are many respected composers who've sometimes drifted afield of what seems to be a particularly stringent----but not improper (I'd like everyone to get proper notice)---definition of composer.

(1) Back to the Beatles. George Harrison's "Taxman" has at least one verse by John Lennon & the song's built on a bass/drums construct developed by Paul McCartney, who also plays the lead guitar solo. Who wrote that song?

(2)Many of Miles Davis's records are constructed from very brief sketches, sometimes by MD, sometimes by bandmembers like Bill Evans (often called before a session & asked to bring in ideas).
These were then elaborated & improvised on by the ensemble. Who composed that music? Miles Davis ?
When Teo Macero took a 30~60 minute tape of collective improv by Miles's bands (which was more often than not the case)& edited it into a semi-coherent piece of music, who composed that? Davis, the ensemble or Macero?


(3) Session musicians regularly develop & contribute ideas to records under an idea called "work for hire". These often are the hooks of the record but they get no credit as composer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those cited above (& the list could easily be expanded) are some generally well-regarded artists who frequently took credit for work created in similar ways that are being discussed here.
Am I somehow missing the point?

There's also the issue of trying to debate or convince someone who's mind may be preset. [*]

Written by Steve Porcaro of Toto

I believe "Taxman" was the song that George asked John to "help" him with, and John complained later that he "didn't get credit". So he was reluctant to "help" George anymore.

George Harrison contributed most of the lead guitar parts to Both Lennon and McCartney's songs, but he wasn't given credit for arrangement or solos because that is not considered part of actually writing the song. Many songs had input from all the members of any given band, but typically its the person that comes up with the idea that gets the credit.

Mike T.

Thanks, meccajay.

Best,

Geoff

Yes.
Many of the instrumental parts of Beatles records, including what the band members played, were created by someone else.
McCartney, especially, but also Lennon & even George Martin would dictate drum parts or guitar solos.
Martin's work on their songs was more hands-on in the early days but he definitely reworked much of their material to an extent many don't realize. Lennon's "Walrus" may be the most extreme example; the parts Martin created for that song completely transformed it.
Similarly the sound of the Beatles records was largely the work of Martin & engineers such as Geoff Emerick, who says in his history of working with them he'd often dial in the tone on their guitar amps rather than use board EQ.
Does anyone suggest that that is the source of their success?
The citations about Davis's work may be even more relevant.

I'm raising the issue that much of what we hear is not the creation, solely, of the credited writer & that to assail MJ as a non-writer or composer based on his not creating everything on his records is a bit strict unless we plan to put that stricture on others, too.

I'm curious; does this trend exist in other businesses or artforms where a person will attempt to claim full or partial credit for a creation that they may not necessarily be deserving of?

Jazz+ should read this thread. It might help him gain a little respect for MJ's abilities as a songwriter. Probably not though...

+1

MJ was plenty talented in many areas. I find it more interesting in learning what he did than anything else. Even if he didnt write a note, it doesnt take anything from his considerable talents. The gearslutz post was interesting and informative.

Some guys do one thing and do it well, like Pavarotti. Others like McCartney have their hands in just about everything. Both possess plenty of talent.

Unfortunately, in todays pop music world there is a third group. LIkewise, there are people out there who think nothing of putting their name on something for financial gain:

I've played with Paul Anka a few times. In concert, he tells the story of the "Tonight Show" theme, which he wrote. According to him, he got a call one nite from Johnny who said "I like it. Oh, put my name on it too!" He then goes on to insinuate how much money that phone call cost him, since Johnny received half of the writing money. I think he said it was like 90 grand a year for all those years.

I know it does in some; maybe in all.




Since he initiated it, let's hope he's reading it but I suspect his opinion, like many expressed regarding MJ, is perhaps unlikely to change.
This is so much a matter of partial (though hardly impartial) speculation but, once entrenched, opinions are hard to sway.

http://www.divshare.com/download/7785978-47d

Interview with Q about Thriller, if you're interested.

+1

Damn, those are some stories.

"I'm curious; does this trend exist in other businesses or artforms where a person will attempt to claim full or partial credit for a creation that they may not necessarily be deserving of?" - quote from cnegrad

I doubt if it happens too often with painters and sculptors, (correct me if I'm wrong!), but writers sometimes steal one another's work and/or fail to give due credit to ghost writers. (Of course, if the latter get paid enough, they probably don't complain TOO much!) Also, writers accuse one another of stealing other people's "conceptions", which can be hard to prove!

Inventors steal from one another, largely because it's often a question of who gets there first to get the patent. There have been a number of legendary court cases.

Human nature being what it is, there are always PLENTY of people who want all of the credit and none of the blame, especially there is fame and fortune involved.

Theft of ideas is everywhere. You will see this even among the peons in offices. Someone comes up with an idea and someone else beats a path to the boss to tell him/her what a brillant idea they just came up with. If this great idea can benefit someone, even in a small way, it gets lifted.


Mike T.

As a final answer to the title question, I think, "Yes."

Guess, Jazz = is "non-plussed"