RIP Michael Jackson 1958 - 2009

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by chipsman on July 1, 2009 at 11:50pm

I wanted to update the importance of the loss of Michael. The similarities between him and Presley are turning out to be amazing. From how they died to the way they have influenced music. Jackson holds the Guiness record for most charities donated to by a personality or entertainer with 39. Presley was known for giving away cars and cash to those less fortunate. Now we see the aftermath and all the news about the kids and the estate. The memorials and future concerts are starting up. Like Presley, it is beginning to look like he will be richer in death than in life. That 400 million he owes will be wiped off the books within 5 years. At least we got 50 years from Michael. Too many musical greats have been lost at even earlier ages through accidents or drug overdoses. Presley, Lennon, Hendrix, Morrison, Cooke, Joplin, Croce, Chapin and even this guy who was one of the starters of a "swing" sound. One of the roots of rock 'n roll. Glenn Miller. In the Mood. I still like to turn the volume up on that song, just like Jackie Wilson's Higher and Higher or Sanford and Townsend's Smoke of a Distant Fire. Peace of Mind by Boston and Huey Lewis' I Want a New Drug. I Want You Back by the Jackson Five is one of those great musical rock songs. And what rock star could make a song dedicated to a rat and make it go to the top of the charts? Talent? Time will tell us how much he had. I think he had a lot.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by steve schmidt on July 2, 2009 at 7:12am

Nice sentiments Steve, pay no mind to the haters. Also, love the name check on the Sanford-Townsend band! Only you could make that leap.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Zink on July 31, 2009 at 11:37am

It does no good to speak ill of the dead . . .

Does he belong up there with Sinatra, Elvis, and The Beatles? Sure he does . . . lots of talent (whatever the hell constitutes talent), a handful of good songs . . . and I could live my life just fine without any of them. As a matter of fact, had I not worked record stores in the 80s & 90s, MJ would have been totally off my radar.

As far as all the money he donated to charity . . . well, I think the discussion of just what he did for Gary Indiana is more to the point. Rich people buy off their consciences with stacks of bills all the time. For all I know, he was a generous and caring person, but the money doesn't tell the story.

The one thing I regret most about MJ's death is how he became another cudgel in the media-driven culture wars. Our bi-polar national identity assumes that you either love him or hate him, and if you hate him that you love God and Country, and if you love him you are one with the expanded mind. Such is the base level of our national discourse these days. Americans really suck sometimes.

He ended his life as a cautionary tale: don't be like Mike. His death allows us another chance to be the damn fools that we are.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jbarge on August 1, 2009 at 9:46pm

An obvious talent for singing, dancing, writing, and producing but having the same impact as Elvis or the Beatles?
Hardly. Not even close - he really only made 2 or 3 great solo pop albums before his personal demons began calling the shots and wrecked him.
"I think pop music should be disposable." Elton John.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BURD on August 3, 2009 at 5:11am

Pop music is disposable...by and large (a few exceptions apply)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John P. Strohm on August 3, 2009 at 3:27pm

Talking about pop music is even less precise than talking about jazz or rock or country, because there's no baseline definition of what it even is. I've called my own music pop since the 80s, and to me that means the songs are structured a certain way - relatively short, with verse/chorus/bridge structure, diatonic harmony, melodic. But not all popular music even necessarily fits that description.

It makes sense on some level to define "pop music" as music that's in the mainstream when it was released, but that's too limiting for me. I like the way Calvin Johnson and his ilk re-claimed the term back in the 80s, which is when I got in the habit of using the term. All that International Pop Underground stuff was coming out of hardcore, and I even remembe the term "pop" being applied to certain hardcore records back in the early '80s (e.g. Milo Goes to College).

I've learned to be careful about describing my own music as pop to non-musicians, because it causes confusion. But when I speak with other songwriters, pro musicians, or serious music biz folks, they totally get it. It's an imprecise term, but it conveys more of a spirit and a loose sense of musicial structure and approach than a sales stratum. The list of artists I'd describe as "pop" is broad and includes, among others, The Beatles, Flaming Lips, Guided by Voices, Vampire Weekend, The Bangles, The Vaselines, the Vulgar Boatmen, Throwing Muses, Run-DMC, Drive-By Truckers, of Montreal, etc. etc. etc. And of course Michael Jackson, but I don't consider him the king of it (nor Elvis the King of Rock n' Roll).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kurt/Yukki on August 3, 2009 at 4:26pm

It's a mistake to think that Michael Jackson's contributions to culture are musical. His popularity and iconic status and the totality of his myth means that he transcended mere "Pop Star" status, and that, he certainly shares with Elvis, though his (MJ's) impact was far less, in my opinion.

Zink, I bet if you hadn't worked at a record store you'd still be familiar with his songs, they were that pervasive...You couldn't escape them.

I haven't had any use for the guy since I was in grade school listening to the Jackson 5, but it sure is a weird story, that dude, or whatever...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BURD on August 3, 2009 at 7:41pm

Yep-I wasn't using the word "Pop" in any other way than to refer to the layman's definition (Elton John probably was too)which means any of the top 40 slop you can hear on (Bloomington station) B97 on any given moment. It is - by and large - disposable. The best Pop songs in my opinion never make it to stations like that. Certainly alot of the "Punk" stuff coming out of California is Pop to me-and I like some of it.

I won't even go into how I feel about MJ-no sense in ruining this blog with my venom. I was just agreeing with Barge.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Zink on August 3, 2009 at 8:42pm

Mr. Barge, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think he was every bit as big as Elvis and the Beatles. He was, for instance, credited with opening MTV up to black artists. If you were younger and/or had different musical interests, I think you would feel differently.

When we talk about the "value" of artists, we tend to have different ways determining their worth . . . it's the difference between the subjective and the objective, the old Marxist tension between "use value" and "exchange value". On an objective exchange value level, he is clearly the equal of The Beatles and Elvis based simply on his record sales. Subjectively, you could make different arguments as to MJ's inferiority based on something other than record sales, but a lot of why we proclaim Elvis and the Beatles great is based on the same objective measures that we are trying to dismiss when discrediting MJ.

I know I'm in the minority here when it comes to the Beatles and Elvis, but I really think that their reputations are more based on ruling the pop charts than their actual music. I will always take Billie Holiday over Frank Sinatra, the Rolling Stones over the Beatles, and any one of a hundred obscure rockabilly yelpers (say, Charlie Feathers - John, you know rockabilly much better than I do) over Elvis, and Prince over Michael Jackson. But that's just me. If you are going to compare artists unfavorably to other artists, you are going to have to define your terms, or the pop charts is all that you are left with.

And Kurt, you're probably right about me not being able to avoid MJ, though I did manage to avoid quite a bit in the '80's for better or for worse. I have, to date, never seen the Thriller video all the way through, though.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kurt/Yukki on August 4, 2009 at 9:37am

Of course context is everything when discussing any sort of cultural impact, but I disagree that Michael Jackson was as significant as The Beatles or Elvis simply because they changed EVERYTHING. There is a very definite line in the cultural sand of Before Elvis and After Elvis, as there is with The Beatles. As far as record sales go, MJ had the benefit of a pop music landscape that was already used to buying records and being the huge musical consumers that we were. MJ trod through the door that had been kicked down long before and walked on by many, many before him. Elvis and Beatles busted through doors, and, it can be argued that the Beatles came hot on the heels of Elvis's blue suede shoes.
Sure, you might prefer Charlie Feathers, or any other Rockabilly singer, to Elvis, but the fact is Elvis created Rockabilly.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by AnneZ on August 4, 2009 at 10:27am

Good article by Hilton Als about MJ in, of all places, the New York Review of Books. Nicely written and not too long, and some of the better analysis I've seen.

After 1991, Jackson's focus was his career—which is work, too, but not the work he could have done. And his tremendous gifts as a singer and arranger, and as a synthesizer of world music in a pop context, became calcified. He forgot how to speak, even behind the jeweled mask of metaphor.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John P. Strohm on August 4, 2009 at 4:04pm

Kurt, if you came up in the R&B world rather than rock, you'd probably scoff at the idea that the Beatles were as important/influential as MJ. As you said context - and also perspective - are key. If you take personal taste out of the equation, then all you have left to measure cultural impact are quantifiables such as record sales, airplay, concert attendance, etc., and that vague concept of "influence," and those figures on MJ aren't comparable to Elvis or the Beatles because both stopped making music nearly 40 years ago, whereas MJ's prime didn't end until the early 90s. We won't really know which artist was the most "influential" until decades from now. But this is clear: he was massively inflential on pop and R&B, and also on fashion and especially dance. But I certainly think it's worth thinking of him in that league of icon. I'd way, waaaayyyy rather listen to Beatles or (some) Elvis records, but I think it's a fair discussion. I'll wait 'til people way smarter than me write some books about it.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page