Whitney Houston: "This is such a tragic loss and a terrible day. The incomparable Michael Jackson has made a bigger impact on music than any other artist in the history of music."
My response to Whitney and seemingly every other person in front of a television camera this week: Uh, yeah... no.
Look, I loved Michael Jackson too. I had a poster of the Jackson 5 over my bed when I was a kid. I saw him do the moonwalk during an epic (lip synced) performance of “Billie Jean” (taped – does anyone even remember that?) from the Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever special. I’m saddened by his untimely demise. No matter what craziness he brought forth into the world, the image of that angelic, young boy with the unbelievable voice, moves, and interpretive genius far, far beyond his years means that I’ll never totally discount him. But can we all take a step back and slow the hyperbole train down just a little bit?
Can we just stop for one second and remember that the man, who anointed Michael Jackson the “King of Pop” was Michael Jackson? Remember that huge statue of himself he ridiculously floated down the River Thames?
The day you die is the day that pretty much everyone gets a pass. The news was even full of appreciation for Richard Nixon’s political genius when he died, and the man was as close to the devil as any politician the United States has ever produced. So yeah, Michael deserved his day in the sun, maybe even a week or so, but let’s not all go completely crazy and start saying that Mozart couldn’t hold a candle to him.
I even just witnessed Kurt Loder say that Michael was a lot more financially savvy than people gave him credit for, which is a pretty amazing statement for someone, who passed away owing his creditors somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 million dollars!
We didn’t lose a Kurt Cobain. We didn’t lose a Buddy Holly. Michael Jackson was without a doubt a completely spent musical force. His last album (Invincible) came out eight years ago, was widely panned and mocked, and my guess is that you didn’t buy it and can’t name three songs off of it. Its predecessor (Dangerous) came out a full ten years before that and despite sales that would make most artists celebrate for the next decade was viewed by his record company as a major disappointment (Yes, you can sell ten million albums and still lose money if you spend 30 million dollars promoting it). His last epic video “You Rock My World” was noteworthy mostly for the fact that it featured Marlon Brando and Chris Tucker, and yet Michael’s appearance was leagues weirder and funnier than either of them. This was not a guy, who was about to have a Johnny Cash career renaissance.
Article comments
1 - Glen Boyd
Please don’t shoot the messenger.
...that goes for the editor too. Holy, moly...
-Glen
2 - El Bicho
"How did he go from being Paul McCartney’s best friend to stealing the Beatles catalog out from under him?"
Because Paul told him how much money there was in it, which he knew from all the catalogs Paul owns from other artists.
3 - Ruvy
Slowly the less nice side of Jackson comes out, and where normally I would reserve my negative comments for a few days, I'm making an exception - a well deserved one.
In the case of Micheal Jacskon, life imitated art. Jackson imitated the character Voldemort of the Harry Potter series of novels. Voldemort was a man who molted more negatively with each evil deed he did, and in the end, wound up looking like a snake. So did Michael Jacskon.
Whether Jackson was davka a pedophile, or whether the fault for his behavior lie with his father (as another sage commenter at this magazine has asserted) is not for me to say - but the evidence was that he sexually abused boys, seducing them. He was a Jew-hater, calling them leeches and releasing a song, "kick me kike me". Any white musician who had released a song saying, "dont treat me like a nigger", would have been hounded from the industry. And all of you reading this, whatever your race is, know that I'm right.
I feel sorry for his three children in the loss of a father, but the truth of the matter is that I get the feeling that they are better off with him dead, unable to influence them negatively. Like Michael Freund, I'll save my sympathy for someone more deserving.
Blessed is the True Judge.
4 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, I know that facts and you aren't really on speaking terms because you love to cast all events to suit your massively outdated mindset, but let me toss a few in your general direction, futile as the exercise undoubtedly will be.
1. Your statement that Jackson imitated a character from the Harry Potter novels can only be completely made up, not least because Jackson's lifestyle pre-dates the books.
2. There is no evidence that Jackson abused boys. He might have, but there is no evidence.
3. There is no evidence that he did actually call Jews leeches. There was an allegation that he said that in a recorded telephone conversation, but it has not been proven.
4. He didn't release a song "kick me kike me". He released a song which included those words in one line. You can read the full lyrics to "They Don't Care About Us" for yourself. To my mind it reads as a song about hatred of all kinds, not a slur against Jews, although your propensity to play the victim may disagree.
5 - Ruvy
I feel comfortable reading the comment you wrote Chris. You maintain your image in my mind of a man who defends Jew-haters - along with the BBC and all the shitheads who would do in Israel. You'll not erase that image; you've reinforced it with 95 percent of the comments you make about the Middle East and the BBC. As to your points:
Technically, Jackson never released a song called "kick me kike me". True enough. I will not argue that issue. That was careless wording on my part, a thought unclearly expressed. I ought tro ha ve said he released a song with the lyrics, etc..... The song you cite has these lyrics in it. That's about as far as you get with your point by point blathering. The point my remark is that no white man could have gotten away with a similar comment about blacks without being kicked out the industry.
It is irrelevant whether a man's life precedes a book or not. Rowling did not imitate Jackson in her book. She created an opposite of Harry Potter, a man who feared death so much he deisred to "eat" it so it would cease to be. But Jackson appeared to imitate her character, "Voldermort" in looks and in doing evil deeds. End of discussion.
There was no conviction in a court of law that Jackson was a child molester. Or, to be precise, if their was, it was overturned. It is the court of public opinion which has convicted him. But there were reams of evidence. Remember Chris, evidence is offered at a trial to prove fact, it is not fact in and of itself.
And there is evidence that he called Jews "leeches", accoerding to my link, "The tapes were played on ABC's Good Morning America program, and Jackson was heard saying, 'They suck…they're like leeches. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose.'" Read my link and research it if you wish (I'll be shocked if you actually do). Remember, evidence is offered to prove fact. It is not fact in and of itself. I've drawn my conclusions from the evidence presented. You are certainly entitled to draw yours.
I bid you a pleasant afternoon.
6 - Christopher Rose
I'm sure you feel comfortable, Ruvy, but let's be honest, if you can; it is you, and you alone, that is maintaining the images in your mind, not me or anybody else. I really don't care one tiny little bit if your image of me is erased or not, simply because I have no respect for a way of thinking that is so divorced from actual reality.
I'm sure a bald statement of fact won't be enough for you, because you appear to want to hold on to your pre-determined little grudges like some weird mental safety blanket, however, I am opposed to all forms of generic hostility as a matter of principle.
Similarly, I am committed to facts whatever they may be, whereas you are committed to an ideology, which by its very nature can not accept information that contradicts it. The only result of that is you end up looking ridiculous and smug, even proud of your posture.
Your point about the music industry is simply false; anybody can start a record label these days, indeed, it has been an easy thing to do for over 30 years now. Given that, it is impossible to kick anyone out of the industry, which is why there are racist and fascist bands around.
I don't know how to more completely reject the meaningless stuff you have now written twice about Jackson and Harry Potter.
The first time you said Jackson "imitated the character Voldemort", which we already know can't be possible because of the timeline, to say nothing of your total lack of access to the thoughts of the late pop star.
The second time you add the even more baffling assertion that "Rowling did not imitate Jackson in her book", when nobody had said that she did.
I've no idea what leads you to assert that "Jackson appeared to imitate her character, "Voldermort" in looks and in doing evil deeds" and doubt that you can actually support such nonsense.
You then continue with yet more baffling doublespeak, namely "There was no conviction in a court of law that Jackson was a child molester. Or, to be precise, if their was, it was overturned."
The facts are that there was no conviction. Nor was there any evidence in his one trial; there was a lot of testimony from a clearly unwell woman but not actually any credible evidence. Similarly, the court of public opinion has not convicted him at all, as the public reaction to his demise so clearly demonstrates.
Finally, I have followed your link, and the article it links to; these are media reports from Jewish sources that, like yourself, have precious little credibility as unprejudiced (note, unprejudiced as opposed to unbiased) sources.
Even if he did say that, once, it pales into insignificance when compared to the persistent and determined messages of hate coming from many different sources, not least your own hate-filled heart.
You don't actually draw conclusions; what you do is snatch at odd little snippets and mould them to fit your pre-determined ideas. This is an obvious pattern with you whether discussing politics, culture or spirituality. To my mind, that is an offense against the common humanity that unites all our species.
7 - Ruvy
Having read a great deal of your nonsense, in all sorts of posts, Chris, makes me feel more comfortable that you whine at the very legitimacy of my remarks and even the right to make them. If you didn't and if you accepted them in silence, it would force me to re-evalute the low image I have of you.
I'll not bother to respond to further "remarks" of yours. Of there are problems with comments and such that require professional attention, I'll contact you off-line as usual.
I bid you a pleasant afternoon.
8 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that you have no response at all to rationality except to flounce off in a big sulk.
I have in no way "whined"; your remarks have no legitimacy, your total inability to support them at all is ample proof of that; you do of course have the right to make such comments; I do not care at all either way what any mystical wafflers think of me; and technically I was responding to your comments, but let's not trouble you further with facts, just stick to the superstitious stuff you rely on so amusingly.
And your trite signoff reeks of hypocrisy...
9 - El Bicho
"Any white musician who had released a song saying, "dont treat me like a nigger", would have been hounded from the industry."
How about a white musician who released a song saying don't treat a woman like that? Is that close enough?
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
Ruvy, would you mind reading the headline again?
11 - Christopher Rose
Can't believe that slipped my mind, El B. "Woman is the Nigger of the World" wasn't it?
12 - El Bicho
That's the one. Although I am sure Ruvy will find some wiggle room to declare his position still right on the matter.
13 - Ruvy
Ruvy, would you mind reading the headline again?
Matt, I was looking for the appropriate place to express my feelings. It seems that Joanne Huspek provided it....
I'm outta here.
14 - zingzing
if someone can read "they don't care about us" as jew-hatred, someone is obviously literate, but has no reading comprehension. it's obviously a song very much against hatred.
but, a hater always sees hate.
15 - e
"The once in a lifetime pairing of Jackson and Eddie Van Halen on “Beat It” was followed by a less than interesting pairing with Slash on 1991’s “Give in to Me.” While we can all sing every note of Van Halen’s ground breaking, cross over insuring “Beat It” solo, I’ll bet my life savings that you can’t even hum three seconds of the melody of its inferior, copy cat follow up."
Give in to Me does not sound anything like Beat It. The tempo and mood of the songs are completely different. I think the reviewer is confusing Give in to Me with another song.
16 - Martha
I grew up listening to the Jacksons. But Michael's albums after Off the Wall (1979) did not really thrill me. Thanks, Brad Laidman, for an interesting article.
17 - Heloise
So, what are you saying? He should have died like 15 years ago? He reached apotheosis early on carried on the wings of music. I can't say that of Holly or Kurt. I don't buy your argument at all. The measure of a man is his fresh fruit.
I am hearing that the MJ fruit is rotten not fresh. If you compare MJ to the master artists of say the Renaissaince Michaelango and later Picasso, then you still don't have an argument. Because Picassco had seen his best days decades before he died, but no one killed him or condemmend his late work as not so freh.
Heloise
Shout out to the BC crew. Good cov of MJ.
18 - Heloise
I posted a bushel of blogs about MJ some positive some negative. The visitors preferred the negative ones 3 to 1.
I don't see why he wanted 3 white children. I don't get it. Now his mom has to raise them and they are his inheritors.
I just think the scales of justice are sagging a bit in MJ's mind. I say "Michael you've done enough" he wanted to adopt two kids from each continent. Enough already.
Heloise
19 - Heloise
Ruvy why do you constantly raise the Jewish martyr flag? MJs death is NOT about you Ruvy. It's not about what he said about Jews. Who freakin cares what he said?
The man was illiterate in so many ways. He could not read music, was not articulate in spoken language and had a poor formal education. He was ripe for scams and they were rife in his life.
But he was financially secure. But spent way more than he made. It was to make up for the loss of real self-esteem that only comes with a good father. It was about MJ and his dad, not about MJ and the Jews or the black muslims. Okay? Get over it.
Heloise
20 - roger nowosielski
Voice of reason.
21 - Brad Laidman
My argument is that post thriller he released 3 albums in 27 years and went mad. I'm as sad about it as you are.
The Holly and Cobain argument is that had they lived they still had great music in front of them - esp Holly who produced tons by the age of 22 - michael's career as a producer of new music was over
22 - RAYN
Well said. I had the same thoughts when one news agency compared his death to that of John Lennon.
Again it's a case of yes, Michael was talented but not THAT talented. His music and lyrics are childish thus matching his life.
In all fairness, Farrah Fawcett should be getting more coverage for that poster alone!
23 - Debbie
I think your article although curious, is completely absurd and mean. No one was disappointed in his recent songs. He was the greatest singer and dancer that the world has ever known or will ever know.I think your just jealous of him.Too bad you couldnt make as much of yourself.Tell all that bull to his millions of fans. See if they agree with you. But of course your right,and everyone else is wrong. Where do you get all this stuff from? do you just make it up as you go along,when your in a bad mood? Yes, he has beat the beatles,Elvis,Marvin gay,and surely Prince. How often do you even hear about Prince? Who else preformed like MJ? Elvis is a close second.
24 - Brett
I'm sorry Debbie, but your post is absurd hyperbole. MJ will never be thought of as greater than the Beatles, Marvin Gaye, Elvis, or Prince in musical terms. And if you're talking popularity, the Beatles and Elvis have him beat on that score. And, while he was a very good singer, he is not even close to the greatest ever. This is exactly the kind of thing that Brad is talking about in this article.
25 - Debbie
What one of those is as great a showman as Micheal? Can you at least agree that he was the best showman? You must admit that Micheal put on a hell of a show. Don't you think he had the best imagination. Look at "Thriller", stage affects,outfits,and his shows.
The beatles had imature,stupid movies,not even a good plot.They didn't dance around or leave the stage on a rocket,like Micheal did.Hey, I loved the beatles. I even had a beatle wig.
I still love Marvin gays music. But did he put on a show with the effects Micheal did?
Elvis, well he did dance, but didnt exactly do a "thriller".