__________ is/are underrated.

[Max Rockatansky]

Was the abuse he suffered as a child and teen the cause of all of his eccentricities, or just the pederasty?

Either way, that stuff is all people tend to think about when it comes to Michael Jackson–ergo, it overshadows his musical genius.

Micheal Jackson is by far the most common artist on my music playlist.  The guy was absolutely a phenomenal musician. 

[Scott5114]

Was the abuse he suffered as a child and teen the cause of all of his eccentricities, or just the pederasty?

Either way, that stuff is all people tend to think about when it comes to Michael Jackson–ergo, it overshadows his musical genius.

I don't know. It seems like, to me, once he died, all of the bad stuff about him was quietly forgotten and now he's just celebrated for his music. Or at least, that's the impression that I get from the local radio station (they played him a lot less after the

The separation, or lack thereof, between an artist and their work is a recurring question that comes up a lot these days. That is, should we enjoy and celebrate the creative works of terrible people? After all, any artist puts some part of themselves into any creative work they do. That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was. That's not true for someone like, e.g., J.K. Rowling, whose personal beliefs are in her work plain as day if you know to look for them while reading.

[abefroman329]

That is, should we enjoy and celebrate the creative works of terrible people? After all, any artist puts some part of themselves into any creative work they do. That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was. That's not true for someone like, e.g., J.K. Rowling, whose personal beliefs are in her work plain as day if you know to look for them while reading.

Of course, Rowling's most rabid fans will tell you that they AREN'T plain as day, and if she intended for the Gringotts to be Jews, then she would have stated as such.

But the answer is, of course, "it depends."  Were they terrible by the standards of their time, or ours?  Were their works also terrible?  I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to works that haven't aged well, but if you get up on stage tonight and yell racial slurs, then you don't get to cast yourself as the victim of a lynch mob when people call you out.

[triplemultiplex]

That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was.

PYT

[Scott5114]

That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was.

PYT

Point taken, although if the song existed in a vacuum and I knew nothing else about Michael Jackson besides that one song, I'd just assume he was referring to a younger girl who was nevertheless old enough for the singer to be hitting on her. And it does explicitly say the object of his affections is a girl.

[abefroman329]

That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was.

PYT

Which is exactly why it's important to look at works in the context of the time period when they were written.  The list of songs that glorify men having sex with teenage girls is as long as my arm, yet no one suspects Ringo Starr or Benny Mardones of pedophilia.

[kphoger]

I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to works that haven't aged well, but if you get up on stage tonight and yell racial slurs, then you don't get to cast yourself as the victim of a lynch mob when people call you out.

Which is exactly why it's important to look at works in the context of the time period when they were written.

Well there you go, being all reasonable and stuff...   

[JoePCool14]

Underrated: Internet forums. Social media sites have mostly killed them off. But in my opinion, none of them result in the same sense of community that forums like this often have, and forums have a certain charm to them (although that could just be my own nostalgia for forums).

I completely agree. I've written about this before, but forums like this one are miles better then using something like Reddit. I'm not saying the Reddit formula is inherently bad. But a traditional forum on its own domain with full control (for better or for worse) and the ability to make boards and sub-boards, you can't beat it.

It's also a lot less snarky and toxic than social media sites.

[kphoger]

It's also a lot less snarky ...

That's just because HB and I will never become mods.

[abefroman329]

It's also a lot less snarky ...

That's just because HB and I will never become mods.

I'm not sure we're working off of a common definition of "snarky."

[JoePCool14]

It's also a lot less snarky ...

That's just because HB and I will never become mods.

I'm not sure we're working off of a common definition of "snarky."

Snarky may have been a poor word choice. We all know how people act on Twitter or Reddit versus how they act on here. And even if it's similar, the vibe here is still different. It's like friendly banter compared to a vicious argument where you don't care about your dignity or the other individual. Only winning the argument.

[kphoger]

It's also a lot less snarky ...

That's just because HB and I will never become mods.

I'm not sure we're working off of a common definition of "snarky."

1.  I doubt anyone would argue that I can be snarky.

2.  Didn't HB's profile use to say 'master of snark' or something similar?

[hotdogPi]

2.  Didn't HB's profile use to say 'master of snark' or something similar?

It's US71, and it's still there.

[kphoger]

2.  Didn't HB's profile use to say 'master of snark' or something similar?

It's US71, and it's still there.

Ah, wrong guy.  Thanks!

[abefroman329]

It's also a lot less snarky ...

That's just because HB and I will never become mods.

I'm not sure we're working off of a common definition of "snarky."

Snarky may have been a poor word choice. We all know how people act on Twitter or Reddit versus how they act on here. And even if it's similar, the vibe here is still different. It's like friendly banter compared to a vicious argument where you don't care about your dignity or the other individual. Only winning the argument.

Oh.  Yeah, people have been jerks online since the bulletin board days, so that part isn't new.  But the fact that people will say the things they say on social media, and using their legal name when saying it, still blows my mind.

You are correct about Internet forums being more of a community than any social media platform.  The closest thing I've seen to that is the group Messenger chat I have with the others who are also mods/admins of a tag group, and we occasionally discuss things other than moderating the group.

[mgk920]

The musical talent of Michael Jackson is underrated, instead being overshadowed by seemingly everything else about him.

Agreed, too.  Yes, if one overlooks his weirdities, he was pretty good.  Ditto his serious rival Prince.

Mike

[hbelkins]

80's glam/hair metal bands.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Was the abuse he suffered as a child and teen the cause of all of his eccentricities, or just the pederasty?

Either way, that stuff is all people tend to think about when it comes to Michael Jackson–ergo, it overshadows his musical genius.

I don't know. It seems like, to me, once he died, all of the bad stuff about him was quietly forgotten and now he's just celebrated for his music. Or at least, that's the impression that I get from the local radio station (they played him a lot less after the

The separation, or lack thereof, between an artist and their work is a recurring question that comes up a lot these days. That is, should we enjoy and celebrate the creative works of terrible people? After all, any artist puts some part of themselves into any creative work they do. That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was. That's not true for someone like, e.g., J.K. Rowling, whose personal beliefs are in her work plain as day if you know to look for them while reading.

It's kind of strange how the opposite has seemed to happen with John Lennon - the generations who grew up with the Beatles or were emotionally affected by his murder think of him as a genius, an advocate for peace, etc., while the generations who have grown up without him (especially zoomers) have wondered "why the fuck do we overlook what an asshole he was to women?"

[hbelkins]

Was the abuse he suffered as a child and teen the cause of all of his eccentricities, or just the pederasty?

Either way, that stuff is all people tend to think about when it comes to Michael Jackson–ergo, it overshadows his musical genius.

I don't know. It seems like, to me, once he died, all of the bad stuff about him was quietly forgotten and now he's just celebrated for his music. Or at least, that's the impression that I get from the local radio station (they played him a lot less after the

The separation, or lack thereof, between an artist and their work is a recurring question that comes up a lot these days. That is, should we enjoy and celebrate the creative works of terrible people? After all, any artist puts some part of themselves into any creative work they do. That being said, in the case of Michael Jackson specifically, it's really hard to tell to what extent any of his personal vices influenced the work. Nothing about "Thriller" really keys you in on what sort of person Michael Jackson was. That's not true for someone like, e.g., J.K. Rowling, whose personal beliefs are in her work plain as day if you know to look for them while reading.

It's kind of strange how the opposite has seemed to happen with John Lennon - the generations who grew up with the Beatles or were emotionally affected by his murder think of him as a genius, an advocate for peace, etc., while the generations who have grown up without him (especially zoomers) have wondered "why the fuck do we overlook what an asshole he was to women?"

Well, he got his. He ended up married to Mabel. 

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

[TheHighwayMan3561]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

[hbelkins]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

Not saying I dislike them. Just saying I don't like them and don't get the rabid fandom. I always preferred the Stones.

[jeffandnicole]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

Not saying I dislike them. Just saying I don't like them and don't get the rabid fandom. I always preferred the Stones.

And other people having rabid fandoms for things you don't is hardly unique either.

[ethanhopkin14]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

Not saying I dislike them. Just saying I don't like them and don't get the rabid fandom. I always preferred the Stones.

And other people having rabid fandoms for things you don't is hardly unique either.

I love the Beatles and am a huge fan, but even I don't understand why women would pay money to see them to scream the whole time and eventually pass out. 

[kurumi]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

Not saying I dislike them. Just saying I don't like them and don't get the rabid fandom. I always preferred the Stones.

And other people having rabid fandoms for things you don't is hardly unique either.

I love the Beatles and am a huge fan, but even I don't understand why women would pay money to see them to scream the whole time and eventually pass out. 

Before K-Pop, there was UK-Pop

[Rothman]

(...is reminded to post "The Beatles" in the "overrated thread...

You did, a whopping 5 posts into that thread.

The Beatles

I mean, your dislike of the Beatles is hardly a unique thing, though.

Not saying I dislike them. Just saying I don't like them and don't get the rabid fandom. I always preferred the Stones.

And other people having rabid fandoms for things you don't is hardly unique either.

I love the Beatles and am a huge fan, but even I don't understand why women would pay money to see them to scream the whole time and eventually pass out. 

Before K-Pop, there was UK-Pop

I am up too late and somehow went off on a mental tangent to British Ska.