Smooth criminal

I never could get the lyrics right. It sounded he was saying Annie are you walking, are you walking Annie? And something about flood stains on the carpet. Here are the lyrics. Now I can memorize them. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBrWNbjw3RA

 

Alien Ant Farm cover was better.

 

What he said!

 

Many songs/groups (not just MJ) are hard to understand the lyrics (Peral Jam comes to mind)

 

Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" at Wembley in '88 destroys AAF in every way.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTXcBo86pz4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTXcBo86pz4[/ame]

In fact, next to Yokohama, I would rank it as one of the greatest live concerts taped, period. Zeppelin at the L.A. Forum and Long Beach Arena in '72, and Elvis's opening night in Vegas (1969) also come to mind.

This seems to be the largest poll concerning the debate: http://www.cover-vs-original.com/sm...t-farm-michael-jackson.html?seite_kommentar=8 Rightfully, and perhaps even thankfully, the original is winning.

 

Nope. Not a fan of the MJ version. Never was. Ant farms is better. Of course I prefer most remakes over the originals. Old man by red light king is awesome. Not to take away from Neil Youngs awesome original.

Of course they are really 2 different songs in the end.

I also prefer 5 finger death punch's version of bad company.

 

If you like decent instrumentals, bad vocals and shoddy imitations of the original, sure. The song is, always has been, always will be, Michael's.

That's fine and all, but that doesn't make the remake(s) better. Note your third person singular present verb "is". Now if you were arguing for Elvis's cover of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" it'd be a different story.

Another example of an absolutely horrendous cover, I'd say just as bad as Smash Mouth's "I'm a Believer" and AAF's "Smooth Criminal" is Michael Jackson's cover of "Come Together". (Diana Ross however does a fantastic rendition.)

Fun fact: "Smooth Criminal" as a single has sold 2.5 million more copies than AAF's sold all together (5 million).

 

O.k. you like the original. Thats cool. It's also been around a few days longer than the remake has. Plus popular culture has a way of driving the masses to do what everyone else is....because its the cool thing. Marketing if done right can sell millions of turds. Loom at new kids on the block and the spice girls. Tell you what I want is horrid but has been said to be one of the most recognized songs in recent history. I will try to find the story on it

 

ants aint nuffin' i can dance better than ants theyre bunch of failures of a white man
nickolodian offered me a contact once but i turned them down bcuz i have more style than that and i dont settle

srsly anyone that listens to ants has bad taste nuff said

 

Back that up with a video. We are all about proper technique here.

 

Yes, like it better, as well as know it's superior on a technical level. There's a reason the AAF version is regarded as a parody, so much that Terry Corso actually addressed it on an MTV interview.

And it'll NEVER sell nearly as close, nor will it ever be as popular. I'm not even sure why this is being brought up as a point.

This is true, however, I hope you're not insinuating "Smooth Criminal", let alone the King of Pop, is a "turd".

Both of what you listed are your run-of-the-mill boy bands, well girl band in the Spice Girls' case--the latter of which not being all that bad, but they really aren't to my preference.

I don't understand what you have against them, they're the biggest British pop phenomenon since Beatlemania, so what?

Edit: The song you're referring to is "Wannabe", and I would rank it far above AAF's "Smooth Criminal".

 

im more of an actor, so ill have to record a freelance just for u
heres me acting though *video removed for profanity*

 

Just not a fan that's all. I feel the world idol singing contest had a better chance of producing good music.

That is untill the corporations decided they know what we like better than us. Thats the story of most pop sensations including the Jackson, and spice girl phenomenon.

Take o.k to good talent add tons.of cash and voila! Top 40. Often times some of these corporate bands do pit out good stuff.

Think back to the music you loved as a kid asuuming you arw.not still a kid. I am betting there is a few that make you wonder what you were thinking. most all 80S hair bands is a good example.

 

dan schneider knew what talent is when he saw me but unfortunately for him he messed up too bad with his previous talent so i not sally my good name working with him

i am my own man

 

Then your way of expressing that is a bit over the top.

I might agree with that about the Spice Girls, but Jackson? No way. Michael worked incredibly hard to achieve what he achieved. He became the King of Pop through his own talents and hard work, and maybe a little help from Quincy Jones. People don't magically revolutionize the industry and break racial barriers, or sell nearly as much as Elvis or The Beatles in the process of doing so; nor do they magically have said talent bestowed upon them. His four octave range is not only impressive, but utilized to its fullest potential in most of his albums.

Nope. I still like the same music I did as a kid (e.g. The Police, Elvis, Elton John, Bootsy Collins, etc.). You're assuming too much about "Human Nature" without doing enough research.

Sometimes, but not as often as you would think. Top 40 what? Billboard? You're not being specific. If you analyze the charts for the past 70 years, you'll come to realize how silly that notion is. Was Jim Croce a manufactured musician pumping out hits "because of corporations"? No. Even the Monkees quickly broke that mold, and they're probably one of the earliest and best examples there is.

I typically don't listen to "80s hair bands", but you're coming off as ignorant now.

 

Priceless!:hail:

Off the Wall and Thriller were amazing, there is no disputing that.

 

Perhaps I am ignorant and over the top in my opinions. I still prefer the aaf parody over the original. I am also pretty sure that untill recent history and the.Internet that no amount of musical talent would get you anywhere without corporate backing. The saying its not what tou know but who yo know ia aplicable. There are obviously exceptions to every thing though.

The world is full of super talented musicians who work very hard, who never get the chance to hit it big due to lack of exposure, and corporate backing.

Not saying MJ was talentless, but had Diana Ross or gladys night,not came across the Jackson 5 they would probably never survived. I recall a failed self released single that they put out. I might be wrong on that though.

 

Odds are if you had the talent you'd get backed. Just look at Elvis, he got somewhere long before signing with RCA. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how becoming a successful musician worked 40-60 years ago. What you fail to realize is that musical talent would typically find you corporate backing in one way or another.

There are exceptions, but what you're saying was never the rule, so it's irrelevant. You think you can play "Stairway to Heaven" and upload it to Youtube and expect to be an overnight sensation? It still doesn't work how you're describing it. It may be easier to put yourself out there, but now that things have evolved, it's even more difficult to be unique and standout. There's a world of imitators out there, and hardly any of them get anywhere for a reason. It's "Dangerous" for an imitation to label itself as original.

Rarely. There comes a point where that "talent" becomes fairly subjective. Back in the day, as Jimmy Page said something or another about, you could do it all yourself; play in clubs, gain a reputation, write material in the meantime, and make it big.

Doubtful. The Jackson 5 was spectacular, if not A, then probably B. Some people are just destined for the spotlight, and Michael was surely one of them. Joe Jackson may have been abusive and a terrible person, but he was incredibly persistent, so even if they went the tedious Tammi Terrell route, it'd only be a matter of time.

Your biggest issue is you're bringing up petty irrelevant points to implicitly discredit Michael and his success, which is failing miserably. Like I said, it wasn't these 'nameless corporations' that revolutionized and shook the industry, broke racial barriers and became trending embodiments of a decade; it was people, people like Michael. So maybe you should just, "Beat It"?