Michael Jackson..RIP

[Sir Stewart]

Please do give Quincy Jones a share of the credit for "Off the Wall" and "Thriller."

 

Cy Young's pitching coach...the name is escaping me...a little help?

[bjorn_skurj]

That's a trick question! Cy Young invented pitching.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Cy Young's pitching coach...the name is escaping me...a little help?

That's not really a valid comparison. I get your point, but the producer of a record is much more recognizable than a pitching coach.

 

I can guarantee those albums would have sounded different had Quincy not been involved.

[isadorah]

It's sometimes hard to do, but people need to learn to separate the art from the artist. If we judged art on a person's character our lives would be without some of the greatest painting, poetry, film and music ever made.

 

 

I was going to hop in this thread and post "are we still talking about this" roll my eyes and go on my merry way, but this got kinda stuck in my craw.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. Maybe in a different time when there was no tv or 24 hour CNN or internet and Gauguin could move to Tahiti and marry a 13 year old girl and contract syphilis from all his indiscretions without any consequences beyond the physical torture of the syphilis...I think art and artist just like science and the means to which it is achieved or any other career and personality should NOT be separated especially if they are in the spotlight. He was a great artist, shame about that child molestation thing. I think a person's character informs their art. Maybe that's why Jackson's music died for a lot of people in the '90s. Is Michael Jackson someone we should idolize and use as an example of someone we want our kids to look up to? Our world isn't going to be without his art or his talent, but aren't we passing judgment on who our heroes should be not if he was or was not a good artist? I find it somewhat disturbing that since thursday all we've heard about was this man, non-stop all the while Farrah Fawcett lost her battle with cancer and through her suffering showed such strength and humanity by allowing her vulnerabilities to be exposed to the world; a story that can respectfully serve as inspiration, strength, and courage to anyone facing cancer. But instead, we'll spend all our time paying homage to a man that made great music back in the day and in his later years maimed, disfigured himself, and lead an "eccentric" lifestyle. "Eccentric" is too often a bullshit term used to overlook an artists bad behavior.

 

I'll take 2 days of Farrah Fawcett coverage over Michael Jackson.

[Spawn's dad]

we'll have to agree to disagree then i guess.

 

in my book, accepting cash to cover up ANY crime (esp. sexual abuse) makes you basically guilty by association and that you feel money can buy justice.

 

I don't get what we're disagreeing about. You're obfuscating. OK, you think the parents did a bad thing. I already said more rational people might choose a different course of action from start to finish. That doesn't alter whether he diddled little boys or not. Because someone lets you do something illegal doesn't suddenly make it ok.

[Good Old Neon]

This is my favorite Michael Jackson story.

 

From Time magazine:

 

...Nirvana's alternative rock opus Nevermind hit the racks and its first song, "Smells Like Teen Spirit," went into heavy rotation on MTV. When it knocked Michael Jackson off the number one spot on the Billboard charts...

 

the link - http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,169666,00.html

[Spawn's dad]

I was going to hop in this thread and post "are we still talking about this" roll my eyes and go on my merry way, but this got kinda stuck in my craw.

 

I disagree wholeheartedly. Maybe in a different time when there was no tv or 24 hour CNN or internet and Gauguin could move to Tahiti and marry a 13 year old girl and contract syphilis from all his indiscretions without any consequences beyond the physical torture of the syphilis...I think art and artist just like science and the means to which it is achieved or any other career and personality should NOT be separated especially if they are in the spotlight. He was a great artist, shame about that child molestation thing. I think a person's character informs their art. Maybe that's why Jackson's music died for a lot of people in the '90s. Is Michael Jackson someone we should idolize and use as an example of someone we want our kids to look up to? Our world isn't going to be without his art or his talent, but aren't we passing judgment on who our heroes should be not if he was or was not a good artist? I find it somewhat disturbing that since thursday all we've heard about was this man, non-stop all the while Farrah Fawcett lost her battle with cancer and through her suffering showed such strength and humanity by allowing her vulnerabilities to be exposed to the world; a story that can respectfully serve as inspiration, strength, and courage to anyone facing cancer. But instead, we'll spend all our time paying homage to a man that made great music back in the day and in his later years maimed, disfigured himself, and lead an "eccentric" lifestyle. "Eccentric" is too often a bullshit term used to overlook an artists bad behavior.

 

I'll take 2 days of Farrah Fawcett coverage over Michael Jackson.

 

 

Calm down.

[Sir Stewart]

That's not really a valid comparison. I get your point, but the producer of a record is much more recognizable than a pitching coach.

 

I can guarantee those albums would have sounded different had Quincy not been involved.

 

I know it's not a fair comparison, but it's the best I could come up with, and I was just having a little fun with bjorn. Q was certainly integral. But he didn't die this week. If he did, we'd also be hearing about Thriller nonstop.

[cryptique]

I think art and artist just like science and the means to which it is achieved or any other career and personality should NOT be separated especially if they are in the spotlight. He was a great artist, shame about that child molestation thing. I think a person's character informs their art.

But what about the art a person creates before the bad behavior takes over? Are you going to tell me that Michael Jackson's work as a ten-year-old kid with the Jackson 5 is now somehow tarnished because he became a child molester as an adult? Are you suggesting that Thriller is tarnished because of behavior Jackson engaged in later?

 

Believe me, I'm not excusing anything Jackson did, but I think it's unfair to crumple up and throw away his work because of his personal failings. If his music creeps you out now because of what you know about how he lived, that's fine -- you have every right to be creeped out. "P.Y.T.," put in context by later revelations about Jackson, is just too creepy to listen to now. But does being creeped out reflect your personal distaste for the artist, or does Jackson's later pedophilia mean that "I'll Be There" is not worth listening to?

 

Art may be an expression that is informed by one's character, but I don't accept that the character of the artist must be considered when judging a piece of art. Once art is completed and released to the world, I believe it stands on its own. If it is truly great work, I don't think the character of the person who created it should drag it down. If Charles Manson wrote a great song, then it should be valued as a great song, even if people find it too creepy to listen to.

 

There are numerous texts in the literary canon that are unattributed, or credited to authors about which little, if anything, is known. These texts are judged on their merits as literature, and some are revered as masterpieces. They have been judged for centuries based solely on their intrinsic value as art. If we were to find out tomorrow that the author of Beowulf had an insatiable appetite for sodomy with prepubescent boys, would that suddenly invalidate the reputation of that text, which has been building for centuries?

 

Jackson clearly was a disturbed individual, with appetites that crossed the line into criminal behavior, and I cannot fault anyone for believing that only his fame and wealth saved him from the prison term he deserved. Personally, I agree. But I also believe that the songs he recorded have their own value, independent of any disgrace that their creator brought upon himself.

 

It's harder to separate a singer from his songs, because his voice is all over them, and his image is associated with them through music videos and endless media coverage. But what if a seventeenth-century sculptor had been a child molester? His art would still exist today, and you could walk up to it in a museum and admire its form without knowing anything of the artist. You could be captivated by its style, its execution. If you then look up the artist on Wikipedia and discover that his behavior was ten times worse than Michael Jackson's, would that nullify everything you previously thought about his work?

 

Maybe in your mind -- but not in objective reality.

[mountain bed]

But what about the art a person creates before the bad behavior takes over? Are you going to tell me that Michael Jackson's work as a ten-year-old kid with the Jackson 5 is now somehow tarnished because he became a child molester as an adult? Are you suggesting that Thriller is tarnished because of behavior Jackson engaged in later?

 

Believe me, I'm not excusing anything Jackson did, but I think it's unfair to crumple up and throw away his work because of his personal failings. If his music creeps you out now because of what you know about how he lived, that's fine -- you have every right to be creeped out. "P.Y.T.," put in context by later revelations about Jackson, is just too creepy to listen to now. But does being creeped out reflect your personal distaste for the artist, or does Jackson's later pedophilia mean that "I'll Be There" is not worth listening to?

 

Art may be an expression that is informed by one's character, but I don't accept that the character of the artist must be considered when judging a piece of art. Once art is completed and released to the world, I believe it stands on its own. If it is truly great work, I don't think the character of the person who created it should drag it down. If Charles Manson wrote a great song, then it should be valued as a great song, even if people find it too creepy to listen to.

 

There are numerous texts in the literary canon that are unattributed, or credited to authors about which little, if anything, is known. These texts are judged on their merits as literature, and some are revered as masterpieces. They have been judged for centuries based solely on their intrinsic value as art. If we were to find out tomorrow that the author of Beowulf had an insatiable appetite for sodomy with prepubescent boys, would that suddenly invalidate the reputation of that text, which has been building for centuries?

 

Jackson clearly was a disturbed individual, with appetites that crossed the line into criminal behavior, and I cannot fault anyone for believing that only his fame and wealth saved him from the prison term he deserved. Personally, I agree. But I also believe that the songs he recorded have their own value, independent of any disgrace that their creator brought upon himself.

 

It's harder to separate a singer from his songs, because his voice is all over them, and his image is associated with them through music videos and endless media coverage. But what if a seventeenth-century sculptor had been a child molester? His art would still exist today, and you could walk up to it in a museum and admire its form without knowing anything of the artist. You could be captivated by its style, its execution. If you then look up the artist on Wikipedia and discover that his behavior was ten times worse than Michael Jackson's, would that nullify everything you previously thought about his work?

 

Maybe in your mind -- but not in objective reality.

I have refrained from butting in with my .02 in this thread, but this post describes my feelings on the subject more eloquently that I ever could. Well done.

[isadorah]

But what if a seventeenth-century sculptor had been a child molester? His art would still exist today, and you could walk up to it in a museum and admire its form without knowing anything of the artist. You could be captivated by its style, its execution. If you then look up the artist on Wikipedia and discover that his behavior was ten times worse than Michael Jackson's, would that nullify everything you previously thought about his work?

 

Gauguin was a child molester. His work is in museums today and we do go and admire it and a lot of people are none the wiser. I think the point of my rant and frustration is that the frenzy and discussion of Michael Jackson is not about his art. It is about everything combined and it seems his bad behavior is being excused because he was a great artist. I don't think a blanket statement that people must separate art from artist is a fair statement. Art and how one interprets and receives it is to each is own. Some people are able to separate the two. I myself am not and can appreciate the artistic merit on its own, but that does not mean the artist should necessarily be idolized and revered as a person. Others might be able to keep it all separate. I just can't.

 

I've calmed down now.

 

and that was very well said cryptique.

[cryptique]

I've calmed down now.

I should mention that my post wasn't aimed solely at you ... it was a reaction to many things that have been posted in this thread -- your post just happened to be the one I replied to.

[isadorah]

I should mention that my post wasn't aimed solely at you ... it was a reaction to many things that have been posted in this thread -- your post just happened to be the one I replied to.

 

 

oh no worries. that was a bat signal to someone else. i knew you weren't aiming for me or anything. and if you were, i can take it.

[Analogman]

I am reminded of this deal:

 

To: NCAA Sports, NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL

 

I am establishing this petition in an effort to let the heads of all the major sports in the US (NCAA Sports, NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL) to ban the popular song "Rock and Roll Part II" to be played at any arena in the US. The reason is that the creator of the song, Paul Francis Gadd (aka, Gary Glitter), is a multiple time pedophile. For years, this song has been played, and I, like most sports fans, found it a very entertaining song. However, since November 1997, when child pornography images were discovered on the hard drive of his personal computer he had taken to a repair shop, I have felt disgusted every time I hear this song at a sporting event. Later, Glitter was charged, but never convicted of having sex with a 14 year old British girl. Later, similar allegations came upon this man for having sex with two girls, ages 11 and 12, in Vietnam. Glitter paid the families of these two girls $4,000 to drop the case. This man is a disgusting human being and I feel his music has no place in the world of sports. If you agree with me, I would love to have you sign this petition. Thank you.

[bjorn_skurj]

Gauguin was a child molester. His work is in museums today and we do go and admire it and a lot of people are none the wiser. I think the point of my rant and frustration is that the frenzy and discussion of Michael Jackson is not about his art. It is about everything combined and it seems his bad behavior is being excused because he was a great artist. I don't think a blanket statement that people must separate art from artist is a fair statement. Art and how one interprets and receives it is to each is own. Some people are able to separate the two. I myself am not and can appreciate the artistic merit on its own, but that does not mean the artist should necessarily be idolized and revered as a person. Others might be able to keep it all separate. I just can't.

 

I've calmed down now.

 

and that was very well said cryptique.

Since child molestation was an integral part of ancient Greek culture, does that make everything the ancient Greeks accomplished tainted?

[Good Old Neon]

Since child molestation was an integral part of ancient Greek culture, does that make everything the ancient Greeks accomplished tainted?

 

Nope, just this one:

 

[Spawn's dad]

Sigh. What was socially acceptacle in an ancient society is a bit irrelevant. We've also managed to evolve since the civil war and have even given women rights. This isn't that though. This is discussing what is devivant behavior. I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with liking his music though I can't imagine discussing his life without a heavy emphasis on his being a deviant.

[Sir Stewart]

I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with liking his music though I can't imagine discussing his life without a heavy emphasis on his being a deviant.

 

I agree with all of this except where you didn't put "alleged" in front of "deviant."

[solace]

I don't get what we're disagreeing about. You're obfuscating. OK, you think the parents did a bad thing. I already said more rational people might choose a different course of action from start to finish. That doesn't alter whether he diddled little boys or not. Because someone lets you do something illegal doesn't suddenly make it ok.

 

fair enough. i'm just a stickler for parental responsibility i guess too, so I just wish more people would point fingers at these parents for letting their children be alone with Michael Jackson, especially after the '93 accusation, that's all. definitely didn't say it made it ok, just that they sort of enabled it to happen.

[Spawn's dad]

Cheers solace

 

rempish I'm on my iPhone posting while on the phone with isadorah and alleged is hard to type

[LouieB]

Changing the subject somewhat I found this article in the NY Times particularly interesting today. I am sitting at home playing my copy of Thriller as I cut and paste this.

 

LouieB

 

After Jackson, Fame May Never Be the Same

By DAVID SEGAL

On Thursday night, a crowd gathered in Union Square in Manhattan for a fond and spontaneous memorial to Michael Jackson. A few hundred onlookers formed a circle, leaving enough space in the middle for the grandstanders and the brave to dance like the King of Pop. Or try to.

 

Even the lamest moonwalk drew chants of “Mi-chael, Mi-chael!”

 

Watching this spectacle, you had to wonder: When will this happen again? When will another pop culture figure mean so much to so many that people are moved to assemble, hug and dance?

 

This is a tribute, of course, to Mr. Jackson’s singular gifts — his voice, songwriting talent, physical grace, and the list goes on and on. But there is the related matter of historical timing. Fame on the level that Mr. Jackson achieved is all but impossible for pop culture heroes today, and quite likely it will never be possible again.

 

On the most basic level, this is matter of business and math. Michael Jackson has sold an estimated 100 million copies worldwide of the 1982 album “Thriller,” which spent more than 31 weeks at the top of the Billboard charts.

 

It’s one of those high-water marks that nobody will touch, because record stores are vanishing, and along with them, megahit albums are vanishing, too. A big week on the Billboard charts is a quarter-million units sold, which is about the number of units the Jonas Brothers moved last week with their latest release, which opened at No. 1. And it’s rare for an album to last even three weeks at the top.

 

People who buy music tend these days to buy — or steal it — online, a song at time.

 

But even if nobody achieves album sales on a Jacksonian scale, couldn’t he or she be an artist every bit as popular, every bit as loved, every bit as listened to?

 

Probably not. The pop-idol field — like every field that can lead to super-fame — is more crowded than it has ever been, and the variety of routes to stardom keep growing. When the Beatles were on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, more than 70 million people watched, that is, more than one-third of the entire population of the United States. Yes, the Beatles were that good. But at the time, there were three networks and the radio. No Facebook, Twitter, video games, movie multiplexes, Sirius radio, malls or a dozen other potential drains on an audience.

 

There weren’t a lot of rock bands, either. George Harrison was the only Beatle who’d visited the United States before the group landed for that historic performance — his sister lived in Illinois — and when he returned to England he gleefully informed his mates that nobody in America could compete.

 

Likewise, Michael Jackson had MTV, which was the place for music videos, and as close to an Ed Sullivan platform as he needed. Of course, it’s been a long time since MTV played hour after hour of prime-time videos. Today, you watch music videos on YouTube, but because there are no programmers to curate what you see, every artist has to compete with thousands of others. And now that anyone with a computer has a miniature studio, and anyone with a Internet connection can post a song, there are more genres, subgenres and artists than ever.

 

That’s why even Michael Jackson would have a hard time becoming Michael Jackson these days. Come to think of it, Farrah Fawcett, who also passed away this week, would never have become Farrah Fawcett if she showed up in that red, one-piece bathing suit today. In the ’70s, she became the fantasy of choice for every post-pubescent teenage boy in the country, selling 10 million posters of her iconic, high-beam smile. Now, there are so many vixens grinning seductively from so many Web sites and lad mags that no single woman could ever commandeer the public imagination in quite the same way. There is no “this year’s model” anymore. There is this week’s model, and that’s about it.

 

There are plenty of upsides to the new unfiltered, multiple-choice pop culture of 2009. We get to decide what we want to listen to and watch, and we can listen and watch whenever we want. It’s far better for aficionados, too, because they can dig deeper into any topic, no matter how obscure. Obsessed with a soccer team in Germany? Twenty years ago, you’d be lucky to spot it twice a year on TV. Now, you can watch it online, and a dozen blogs are there to parse every goal, red card and trade.

 

But there is something sad about our infinite menu of options. It could very well mean the end of true superstardom and with it, the end the collective experience on display Thursday night in Union Square.

 

Everyone there knew Michael Jackson. Everyone there had watched him, sang with him, tried to dance with him and, yes, everyone was collectively aghast by much of his recent behavior. But he was ours. If nothing else, his passing reminds us of how little in pop culture we currently share.

 

And inadvertently, that Union Square memorial demonstrated why. In the middle of the impromptu festivities, a pedicab cycled by with a platform attached to the back. Jutting from the platform: a silver, 10-foot stripper pole, on which a woman in lingerie was spinning, legs splayed, upside down, then right side up, then upside down again.

 

There were flashing lights and, inevitably, the name of a Web site stenciled on the side.

 

Half of the people in the Michael Jackson throng spotted the rolling spectacle and started pointing. A few dozen turned on their heels and joined this woman and her cycler in a slow, jaw-dropping and highly distracting procession down the street.

[bjorn_skurj]

I doubt many discussions of MJ will omit the fact he was a weirdo of the first magnitude; few discussions of Wagner these days fail to bring up his anti-Semitism. Ike Turner? Even he got props when he died. It could be that the art touches many lives, but the abuse few, albeit profoundly negatively, and that's why it is glossed over or forgiven by many.

[isadorah]

Cheers solace

 

rempish I'm on my iPhone posting while on the phone with isadorah and alleged is hard to type

 

it is true, he indeed was multitasking. i'm pretty sure he was also driving.

[LouieB]

I doubt many discussions of MJ will omit the fact he was a weirdo of the first magnitude; few discussions of Wagner these days fail to bring up his anti-Semitism. Ike Turner? Even he got props when he died. It could be that the art touches many lives, but the abuse few, albeit profoundly negatively, and that's why it is glossed over or forgiven by many.

Both of those artists (Wagner and particularly Ike Turner) are almost completely defined by the issues you mentioned. Ike Turner's musical history is extremely interesting and important, but he is almost always thought of as the guy who beat up Tina.

 

LouieB

[Analogman]

From the news coverage I have seen, the talk is mainly about his money problems, his death, his past legal troubles, etc. I'd say that sort of coverage is going to be what the major news outlets are going to focus on. I have seen some talk of his talent, of course, but it seems to be in the context of how he was worshiped by so many people around the world.

 

I figured someone was going to propose this at some point:

 

Michael Jackson May Be Buried At Neverland