Michael Jackson is dead.

[Hammerskjold]

Sadly, one of the first things I thought of when I heard the news was, could this be a hoax?
The guy is supposedly pretty deep in debt, among other troubles. And it would be one hell of a way for a 'comeback' stunt.

And this Onion article http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940 is a bit too close to the truth for me, since I think it's not that far off to say he may have been on metaphorical life support since the mid 90's.


But maybe it's because I'm a child of the 80's, who remembered listening and watching his music videos via smuggled videotapes from Dutch television. Since I grew up in a country where officially, those videos are a corrupting decadent influence from the West blah blah blah. (Some of his music was okayed for radio play, but not his videos, or any videos from the 'West' really.) Unofficially, anyone and everyone in the country probably knows who Michael Jackson is. One word. Thriller.

I don't have natural rhythm in my body. I can't carry a decent tune. But when I hear Thriller, God. Damn. Only the most churlish sanctimonius hypocrite would blather on about where is our value when we venerate pop musicians and celebreties bla bla blork blork blork. Here's the thing. Before people really bought into the 15 minute Warholism too literally, famous people used to be known for something.

And Michael Jackson, before the increasingly off putting weirdness even by artists standard, the sordid and horrid allegations, could really do something special.

/raises a Pepsi to toast MJ's musical and dancing talent, while playing Thriller.

[Archon_Wing]

RIP Michael, king of pop. I love his songs from the 80s. I didn't expect him to leave so fast, very unfortunate.

[Jester]

The guy is supposedly pretty deep in debt, among other troubles. And it would be one hell of a way for a 'comeback' stunt.

He had already sold out, in advance, 50 shows at the O2, over a million total tickets. I don't think he needed to fake his own death to get popular again.

-Jester

[andrewmoquin]

Sadly, one of the first things I thought of when I heard the news was, could this be a hoax?
The guy is supposedly pretty deep in debt, among other troubles. And it would be one hell of a way for a 'comeback' stunt.

And this Onion article http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940 is a bit too close to the truth for me, since I think it's not that far off to say he may have been on metaphorical life support since the mid 90's.
But maybe it's because I'm a child of the 80's, who remembered listening and watching his music videos via smuggled videotapes from Dutch television. Since I grew up in a country where officially, those videos are a corrupting decadent influence from the West blah blah blah. (Some of his music was okayed for radio play, but not his videos, or any videos from the 'West' really.) Unofficially, anyone and everyone in the country probably knows who Michael Jackson is. One word. Thriller.

I don't have natural rhythm in my body. I can't carry a decent tune. But when I hear Thriller, God. Damn. Only the most churlish sanctimonius hypocrite would blather on about where is our value when we venerate pop musicians and celebreties bla bla blork blork blork. Here's the thing. Before people really bought into the 15 minute Warholism too literally, famous people used to be known for something.

And Michael Jackson, before the increasingly off putting weirdness even by artists standard, the sordid and horrid allegations, could really do something special.

/raises a Pepsi to toast MJ's musical and dancing talent, while playing Thriller.

We may never know the truth behind the child abuse allegations, whether his marriage to Lisa-Marie was a sham, the relationship he had with Bubbles the chimp or why he destroyed his friendship with Paul McCartney by outbidding his former friend for ownership of The Beatles’ back catalogue.

But whatever people think of his personal life, when it comes to his music, many will now relate with the chorus to You Are Not Alone, “though we’re far apart, you’re always in my heart”.

Rest in peace, Michael Jackson.

[weakwarrior]

We may never know the truth behind... why he destroyed his friendship with Paul McCartney by outbidding his former friend for ownership of The Beatles’ back catalogue.

Can you say hundreds of millions of dollars? Because that's what he made on the deal. Btw, http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10457

[Hammerskjold]

Can you say hundreds of millions of dollars? Because that's what he made on the deal. Btw, http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10457

While money is definitely a big reason, it seems it's only one of the reasons.

At least from this source anyway.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/...,0,452154.story

Or shorter version,
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

It'd be one hell of a gesture if the info in the link you put up is or will come true, since McCartney and Jackson seem to be sincerely getting along well at least from the Say Say Say video. ;) I have this hunch though that right now it sounds more like something swiped from the London tabloids rumours. Maybe it's because they use 'Macca' for Paul.

But speaking of the will. At this point at least from what I see on the news coverage. Most of the important points ie: custody of children, Jackson's estate and property etc, are laid out pretty clearly. And there's no mention of giving any of the Beatles songs catalog to Mccartney.

I'm not saying it's impossible, since supposedly there are other parts of the will that are not yet made public. But going just by the main parts of the will, the gist of it seems to be the majority of Jackson's fortunes are for his 3 children. I'm guessing the ATV\Sony Beatles catalog is probably a large part of that.

[weakwarrior]

While money is definitely a big reason, it seems it's only one of the reasons.

At least from this source anyway.

Or shorter version...

I don't see what you mean? I read the first half of the longer version and the whole shorter one. Seems like money was the reason as best I can tell.

[kandrathe]

This might be heresy to say...

But I wish it were all over already.

I really never liked his music that much (except the Weird Al parodies). My taste in music was always heavier, and darker than what he produced. I thought Micheal was quirky in that "Howard Hughes is afraid of germs" kind of quirky, which was obviously a result of his twisted childhood. Neverland Ranch was the physical expression of a plea from a man who wanted to remain the boy(Peter Pan) who never grew up. I've avoided the networks for a week because this corpse of a career needed to be exhumed before reburying it permanently.

Were it not for his obvious weaknesses, he might have been a mighty force in pop music. This death was probably inevitable, but I find Heath Ledger's death to be more tragic.

[Frag]

. . .

Feel better?

~Frag <_<

[Hammerskjold]

I don't see what you mean? I read the first half of the longer version and the whole shorter one. Seems like money was the reason as best I can tell.

I meant that while money was a big reason, probably the best reason, it's not the only reason.

If the LA times article is true, Jackson had other opportunities to buy other song rights that while might not be as potentially lucrative (relatively speaking of course), would still make him some nice mints. But he passed on it. He wanted to buy songs that also have a personal attachment to him, aside from earning potential. Let's be clear though, I never said he doesn't care about the money part or anything silly like that.

[Hammerskjold]

Were it not for his obvious weaknesses, he might have been a mighty force in pop music.

AHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha....oh man.


Oh, were you serious?

My apologies then, I didn't know you had a bout of amnesia during the early 1980's.

edited for quote tags.

[Occhidiangela]

AHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha....oh man.
Oh, were you serious?

My apologies then, I didn't know you had a bout of amnesia during the early 1980's.

edited for quote tags.

Every man dies, not every man really lives. (From Brave Heart)

Michael Jackson is dead. He was a great success in his chosen field, popular music. He could have retired any number of times, but it was his passion.

He also gave a crap load of money to charity. I admire his putting his money where his mouth was on that one.

Very few of his tunes reached me, but he sure cranked out the hits. (Let's all give a nod to Quincy Jones, shall we?)

What he did to himself, and his family, for the past 25 years is a text book case of how NOT to handle fame.

But I doubt any lesson will be learned. The worship of this icon, this false prophet, is typical new age foolishness. One cannot go broke by appealing to stupidity in popular culture: it's a hell of a money maker.

I hear he and Elvis are due to go on tour together next year ...

RIP, Michael Jackson, you did well enough as an entertainer, but you never grew to become a man.

Occhi

[Hammerskjold]

But I doubt any lesson will be learned.

Yep. Or another possibility, all the wrong lessons. Like notoriety \ infamy is the same as famous, no such thing as bad press etc.

Let me clarify, I'm not one to venerate Jackson as some sort of saint here. And some of the coverage is well, it looks like a bunch of vultures circling and fighting over the last scrap of a golden goose that's seen better days.

And I said previously, for me Jackson really seemed to be on life support since the mid 90's. It's sad to see someone like Jackson who is one of the most 'in control' entertainer in terms of able to think and execute almost all facets of his work at his zenith, going so out of control in his personal life and antics and overshadow his real talents and abilities. It didn't begin with Jackson, and it likely won't end with Jackson.


Having said all that, it's not a stretch to say there was a time when Jackson and *Madonna put a young channel called MTV in the 80's on the map. Before MTV was the home of 'Jackass', 'Pimp My Ride', 'The Hills', they showed a bunch of music videos. And many of the videos that 'made' MTV in it's heyday belonged to either Jackson, or Madonna.

Jackson was able to get one of the higher if not highest royalty shares in his record deal at the time. I'd say that's quite the achievement as far as pop and the music industry goes. But that's just my opinion. Apparently some other people's opinion are -the- standard, or at least they talk like it is.

*(I'm no fan of Madonna, but I'm not going to dismiss her work entirely simply because I'm not a fan of most of her songs or herself.)

But hey, there's nothing stopping anyone that says a mightier force on pop music could've been achieved, to try to do so themselves. Maybe they should, maybe they'll find out things are not always as easy as their mouth make it out to be.

....Nah, talking it is probably the same as doing it.


ps. An internet wag already beat me to it, but I'm taking bets that Joe Jackson will try to sell souvenirs during the memorial, or possibly during the burial. Or at least weave in his new record company venture during the eulogy. To paraphrase Ron Burgundy, ' Stay classy Joe Jackson.'

[kandrathe]

AHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha....oh man. Oh, were you serious?

My apologies then, I didn't know you had a bout of amnesia during the early 1980's.

Micheal died a young man, who had tremendous talent, and a bout of fame. He released 10 albums after beginning his solo career, 5 in the 70's, 2 in the 80's, 2 in the 90's, and his last album was released in 2001. In my opinion, it was well below what he might have done had be been more serious about his musical career.

I would add that some of his albums were wildly popular and sold very well, but I measure an artist by both their talent and their dedication to their art. Otherwise we'd be comparing Micheal with the likes of Celine Dion, Julio Iglesias, and Engelbert Humperdinck.

For example, compare his significant, yet meager contribution to a more prolific and possibly more serious artist like Bob Dylan who had thirty-three studio albums, fifty-eight singles, thirteen live albums, and fourteen compilation albums.

[Jester]

For example, compare his significant, yet meager contribution to a more prolific and possibly more serious artist like Bob Dylan who had thirty-three studio albums, fifty-eight singles, thirteen live albums, and fourteen compilation albums.

Michael Jackson's career hardly begins with his solo work. The Jackson 5 material is almost another 10 albums and over 20 singles.

I don't know by what standard 20-ish albums in a career constitutes "meager." That seems well beyond what most artists or groups manage in a lifetime. It's more than Paul Simon. More than Bruce Springsteen or Pink Floyd, Aerosmith or the Grateful Dead. How many albums exactly does someone have to make before they're "serious"?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

De gustibus non est disputandum.

--Pete

[LennyLen]

Hi,

De gustibus non est disputandum.

--Pete

Oh, I don't know. I think there's a few people here that could argue anything.;)

[kandrathe]

Michael Jackson's career hardly begins with his solo work. The Jackson 5 material is almost another 10 albums and over 20 singles.

Do you think the Jackson 5 was all due to Micheal? Other than a few pop songs that Micheal sang, I don't recall much of their work having any lasting effect on the music world. If that counts, then consider Ringo Starr's group plus solo career.

I don't know by what standard 20-ish albums in a career constitutes "meager." That seems well beyond what most artists or groups manage in a lifetime. It's more than Paul Simon. More than Bruce Springsteen or Pink Floyd, Aerosmith or the Grateful Dead. How many albums exactly does someone have to make before they're "serious"?

My observation is that "serious" means an album every 12 to 18 months, spanning over at least 20 years. There are many (maybe too many) flash in the pan groups/artists who maybe have a profound influence, but that doesn't mean they lived up to their potential. The groups you mentioned, and many more would have a bigger influence if they wrote more, or performed more, or both.

What I'm saying is that Micheal rested upon his fame, and got distracted with his demons and wasn't very serious about writing and performing. He just wasn't very effective or influential for the past 20 years. In fact, he was more interesting as an oddity than he was as an artist.

[Jester]

Do you think the Jackson 5 was all due to Micheal? Other than a few pop songs that Micheal sang, I don't recall much of their work having any lasting effect on the music world.

Michael Jackson was the lead singer, dancer and star of the Jackson 5. Obviously, he wasn't the entire band, but saying he doesn't get "career" credit for his albums with the Jackson 5 is like saying Peter Gabriel doesn't get credit for his time with Genesis.

If that counts, then consider Ringo Starr's group plus solo career.

Ringo's overall influence is probably quite high, but that's a Beatles thing. If you're agreeing that just mashing out albums that don't have much influence means you're not very influential, then great, but that didn't seem to be your point above.

My observation is that "serious" means an album every 12 to 18 months, spanning over at least 20 years.

Okay. The Jackson 5's first album (and no.1 single) was in 1969. They produced an album a year or more for 6 years, until 1980, plus an extra in 1984. Michael Jackson started recording albums as a solo artist in 1972, putting out at least one every few years, overlapping with his Jackson 5 recordings, all the way up until Thriller, which was in 1982. (Does the fact that this was *the* best-selling album, *ever*, count for anything?) Then there is Bad, in 1987, and Dangerous, in 1991.

Even assuming his career stops cold at 1991, that's over 20 years and about 24 albums. He had something like 30 top 10 hits, hitting the top of the charts all the way from 1969 (I Want You Back and Who's Loving You) to 1991 (Black or White).

There are many (maybe too many) flash in the pan groups/artists who maybe have a profound influence, but that doesn't mean they lived up to their potential. The groups you mentioned, and many more would have a bigger influence if they wrote more, or performed more, or both.

The groups I mentioned are from the pantheon of rock gods. You could count the number of more influential bands on the fingers of one hand. The Beatles? The Rolling Stones? Bob Dylan? Who else? Elvis, maybe?

What I'm saying is that Micheal rested upon his fame, and got distracted with his demons and wasn't very serious about writing and performing. He just wasn't very effective or influential for the past 20 years. In fact, he was more interesting as an oddity than he was as an artist.

Sure. But before that, he had a long, phenomenally successful career as a singer, dancer, and writer. He'd done more work in those years than most artists do in several lifetimes.

Funny thing is, I don't even really like MJ. But I can tell you it's a solid fact that he is among the most influential, successful acts of all time.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But I can tell you it's a solid fact that he is among the most influential, successful acts of all time.

Yeah, he *was* a phenom. But, he died an unhappy *has been* who was trying to stage a come back tour. So, what I'm talking about is that I think about life long musicians like B.B. King, Willie Nelson, or Bob Dylan, and then what MJ might have done had he not had those demons haunting him. And, he is by far not the only one... I think the industry itself cashes in on disposable fame.

So, I agree, he *was* a phenomenal performer, but was he a phenomenal musician? For me, no. I respect many other artists more.