Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiI Saw the News on Television Today, Oh Boy
I caught all of about ten minutes worth of televised coverage of the Michael Jackson memorial service this week (I was in a pizza parlor, waiting for my slice to heat up) - which, as it turned out, was about eleven minutes too many for my taste.
I don't mean to sound like somebody's craggy old grandpa, incessantly whining about how "it was better in our day", but I couldn't help thinking about the degree to which Jackson - in life and death - personified the utter shallowness of the culture we now endure.
And I certainly don't mean to play the game of My Dead Rock Star Is Better Than Your Dead Rock Star, but I also couldn't help being thrown back upon my memories and grief at the loss thirty years ago of a cultural figure who really did matter, John Lennon.
The two individuals, their contributions and contexts, our reactions to them, and even their deaths, say everything about America then and now.
The fact that some commentators have exposed the worst excesses of the Jackson media death-bacchanalia suggests there may be a shred of hope for us as a society yet. But stack those lonely voices up against the tidal wave of televised coverage of this non-event, and the grim visage of our unbearable lightness as beings comes into an altogether too clear focus.
Despite being twenty years past his prime at the moment of his death, Michael Jackson personified that lack of seriousness that has become to this society what water is to fish. As an entertainer - and that is the operative term - he struck me as a profound regression to an era whose then apparent demise I surely did not lament. Like, say, Sammy Davis Jr., Jackson could sing and dance, and was a black man successful at penetrating the white man's world. But like the entire milieu from which Davis emanated, Jackson's work (as opposed to art) was careful to demand little from its customers - again, this being the operative term. (Not for nothing was the song-writing machine that penned the Jackson Five's early hits known as "The Corporation".)
Hence the silliness that has been attendant to his death, and in particular the Academy Awards-like public ceremony featuring Mariah Carey and all the usual sultans of smarm. It would be most unpleasant to admit to ourselves that one of our greatest cultural icons lacked depth. That could only mean, ergo, that the fellow in the mirror is the proud owner of a substantial and uncomfortable absence of there there. And so we desperately try to append qualities to Michael Jackson in death that he never possessed in life, the better to explain away our own vacuousness.
Jackson himself strikes me as a sort of tragic figure, according to the most gracious rendering I can put together, in honor of speaking as charitably about the dead as one can. His father appears to have been a success-obsessed sadist who may own the lion's share of responsibility for what his seventh child became, both good and bad.
And what that was more than anything, it seems to me, was a boy locked forever in the body of a man. I certainly don't begrudge anyone that, if that's how they choose to live their lives (sans the penchant for pedophilia, of course, or the use of one's own child as a daredevil photo-op prop). What I wonder about is what it says about us that we elevate such an individual to the highest ranks of those we adore as a society.
Yes, I know Michael Jackson gave money to charities. And that he was honored by Ronald and Nancy Reagan for his work in fighting drug addiction. Gosh, I feel better already.
In so many ways, Jackson - like his contemporary, Madonna - represented the emptying of content from the great flowering of popular culture that preceded him. Once the substance had been entirely sucked out, all that was left was the bogus symbolism of anti-establishmentarianism and the hollow tropes of faux danger and commercialized dissent.
When John Carlos and Tommy Smith held up their single gloved hands at the Olympics in 1968, it took guts, you knew what they were saying, and it was in your face. By the time Michael Jackson did it fifteen years later the glove was now covered with sequins, it was part of a dance costume, and what exactly did it mean...? Wrong question, sucka. Meaning was by then already so dated a concept. It was enough that is just seemed "Bad" - a real "Thriller".
Where Lennon had the stones to put his celebrity to work in dissing religion or composing a gutsy feminist screed like "Woman Is The Nigger Of The World", Jackson gave us insidious fluff and candy, complete with tricky dance moves. I can't think of a single substantive contribution he made toward advancing this culture during his lifetime, a period which fairly screamed out for all the help it could get from anyone with a microphone. No, sorry, the moonwalk did not make us a better, more moral people. Even in Jackson's most obvious potential arena for political leadership - the question of race - his preeminent contribution seems to have been reminding people across the globe that black is not beautiful, and that those who can afford to should follow his lead in trying to become more white.
Ostensibly, both Lennon's "Imagine" and Jackson's "We Are The World" have a common theme. In reality, they couldn't be further apart. Where Lennon offered a work of beautiful simplicity that called for the eradication of tribalism and superstition, Jackson's sing-along is really a paternalistic paean to self-reverence, clothed in the garb of a charity benefit.
Worse still, it's pablum, and it worships the very superstitions that Lennon sought to eradicate. In Jackson's anthem to the starving children of the world, we get this line: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change", directly followed - without the slightest sense of irony - by this one: "We are all a part of God's great big family and the truth, you know love is all we need".
Sorry. I guess I do sound like an old geezer, after all, romanticizing how it was so much better back in my day.
But, you know what? Take a look around.
It was so much better then.
78 Comments so far
Show AllWant some Haterade with this article Mr. Green?
as an apologia-fest for the democratic party, i tho't dmg would love mj's funeral.
christ on a pogo stick, much of pop culture in the 60's was just as vacuous as it is today. faux nostalgia for a world that never existed.
and while decrying the media-generated hype of mj's funeral, d.m.g also wallows in it, w/his assertion that mj was a pedophile. funny how a jury found there was nothing to that charge, but the media said it and ran w/it over & over, so, for d.m.g., it must be true.
green is an idiot. as if there has been some kind of objective decline in "taste" since the 60's. green has no inkling that there are forces today that would squash a lennon and prop up a jackson (or that mj might have wanted to do certain kinds of work, but his music distributors told him no fucking way). right. kids today like gangsta rap b/c they are bad, crude, stupid, not b/c industry exclusively promotes the thug style.
i'll say it again: what an idiot.
"green has no inkling that there are forces today that would squash a lennon and prop up a jackson..."
Yeah, it's called Big Media, and it controls everything that becomes "pop" today. only those "artists" that BM allows to be known ever make it.
There is a lot more culture in the world than BM is willing to allow people to know about. And quite frankly, it is better than what Jackson became under their control.
About wallowing in the media frenzy of MJ and given the state of the world currently, tells us much about the consciousness of the herd. The sausage links will continue to be churned out on the assembly line where it is all about the me-me-me-me- and, me generations.
When the superstructure comes crashing down the infantilism under the surface will emerge as a dominate force while the children scramble looking for someone to hold their hands for them.
"...and that those who can afford to should follow his lead in trying to become more white."
Michael suffered from vitiligo, a very real condition that affects people of all races. His nose surgeries were attempts to rectify a broken nose from which he had trouble breathing. Michael was not at all trying to be "white."
"Jackson gave us insidious fluff and candy..."
I suppose the author has never heard the song or seen the video for "They Don't Care About Us." How about the hopeful encouraging anti-racism of "Black or White?"
Those dance moves of his I also think had an impact somewhat as they taught men to rethink their masculinity. Michael was sort of feminized, androgynous even, but he made it "cool." Instead of beating people up or knifing them, he...danced. It seems sort of corny, and I certainly though so when the videos for "Bad" and "Beat It" originally aired. But in retrospect, wouldn't it be nice if young men settled differences with dance instead of violence?
He did, I think help race-wise. He broke MTV's all-white AOR barrier, thereby helping to spread the popularity of black music and experience.
I'll admit to not being a huge pop fan as my musical tastes lean towards the heavy, aggressive, and guitar-driven, but while he was not the Son of God as a bunch of people are making him out to be, and his life and death have gotten way too much attention from the media, Michael wasn't some freakish monster either, and I think he was at least a little more than just a pop sensation. I guess I'm just tired of him being raked over the coals as well since I smell so much racism and homophobia around it.
He'll be legend 20 years from now, despite the efforts of the cranky, cynical, old, bitter, and hateful.
He also said there was nothing wrong with sleeping with little boys to the news media.
I think he meant sleeping in the platonic sense, but given the paranoia of the rest of us, it was unwise. We know from the Catholic priesthood that pedophile's rarely advertise their sleeping preferences, and from certain GOP congressmen that they will often appear to be the exact opposite of what they secretly are. But pedophiles DO reliably covet photo's of boys in compromising positions, collecting them even, and spend many hours surfing websites with such photos. One thing that always struck me about the Jackson trial: after descending on Neverland with more Federal agents than had EVER been used before or since in any criminal investigation (literally hundreds of agents), the evidence presented at the trial was a handful of dirty magazines, some with obese women, and allegations from a family with a long, long history of celebrity extortion and perjury. None of the normal, sordid paraphernalia you would expect of a pedophile. Given the resources deployed (did you know when he flew from Vegas to L.A. to be indicted, they bugged his jet?), it was amazing the LACK of evidence presented at his trial. But he was certainly guilty of being terminally weird. What does it say about the rest of us that that is enough?
classic green.
great job.
Can't we all just get along?
doesn't seem like it william of dallas..........
that's the whole problem with the planet..................
Why not celebrate singing and dancing?
Let's just recall that it's not a lot of other things that it is not. The marketing is tragic enough when it applies to someone like Jackson, but more so when it parses our news and our academic institutions.
There are a lot of GOOD singers and dancers you'll never see on TV, primarily because Big Media won't let you. As someone who has danced most of my life, there are a lot of really good dancers out there. Programs like "Dancing with the Stars" and "So You Think You Can Dance" are all hype and fluff. I've known, and danced regularly with people who are as good, or better, than any of the people on those shows, but they'll never be on TV.
While we were in thrall to the media's coverage of M. J.
we were not learning about the economy; deaths of Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans or American civilian and military personnel, the president's power grab, unemployment, budgetary cuts in social services or reading things like: Common Sense by Thomas Paine http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm
or National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0329.shtm
The media has once again succeeded in providing trivia and diverting attention from critical issues of social, national and international importance
While we were in thrall to the media's coverage of M. J.
we were not learning about the economy; deaths of Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans or American civilian and military personnel, the president's power grab, unemployment, budgetary cuts in social services or reading things like: Common Sense by Thomas Paine http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm
or National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/editorial_0329.shtm
The media has once again succeeded in providing trivia and diverting attention from critical issues of social, national and international importance
Sorry folks for posting this twice.
As a first timer I'm not familiar with the posting process.
It's sad to read how baby boomers within the liberal elite try to convince us liberal X-ers about how screwed up we are. First by slamming Obama after only six months in office and now by trivializing Micheal Jackson's death by shoving an icon in our face who has been dead for nearly twenty-nine years. What nerve. I find it ironic how the same generation who brought us Vietnam war protests, peace marches, folk music, "give piece a chance", and Title IX is the same generation who brought us Reaganomics, deregulation, junk bonds, Dot.Com bubbles, Monica, Clinton X 2, Bush X 4, Iraq (part I & II), Afghanistan (part I & II), Sub-prime loans, and TARP funds. And you guys are telling us who our idols should be?
WTF?
Neocons are former flower children and hippies of Lennon's generation, who, in their own self-righteous way are just as guilty of destroying this country as any republican is. Moreover, I find that the liberal elite who worship egocentric, self-important, and unelectable loudmouths like Ralph Nader just as proselytizing and destructive as any neocon.
The most honest thing DMG could have wrote was that he didn't like MJ and that he wanted all of the celebrations to end. Instead, all we got was a whiner who sounded a lot like Peter King or some other republican kook.
My twenty-two year old son asked why we should listen to cranks like Green.
As a child, he danced to Michael Jackson - Even the "hip" generation ranks Thriller as one of the greatest albums in history.
Lennon was a hero of the liberal west - Jackson was loved by the whole world, with the exception of the hip progressive community (sarcasm inplied)
Professor Green should realize that he has become what he never wanted to be - a neocon who has lost touch with the world and who works for the "establishment".
I feel sorry for the younger generations that have to bail out the corrupted baby boom generation - and they also have to sit in class with old farts like Green who should have retired years ago.
Your comment on Lennon seems to confirm Green's allusion to shallowness. And I get the impression that you aren't clear on what "neocon" means.
Lennon wasn't just a 'hero of the liberal west', but of the young people in the Soviet Union & the Soviet bloc as well.
Except he was aware of the tension & the irony of being a celebrity & financial success -- "Christ, you know it ain't easy / you know how hard it can be / the way things are goin' / they're gonna crucify me!" Lennon was aware, Jackson was nothing but a dancing capitalist.
So WHAT if an album was 'one of the greatest albums in history'? MacDonald's has sold more hamburgers than anyone too.
I'm Obama's age -- not baby boomers, but the original 'Generation X' (Douglas Coupland's book is about people born at the end of the '50s & start of the '60s).
I admit it. It was me.
I brought you the Vietnam war, protested that war, gave peace a chance, then sold junk bonds, promoted Reganomics, caused the .com bubble, disrespected Michael Jackson, threw John Lennon in everyone's face, was at Woodstock, and voted for John McCain.
Of course, I'm now a neocon old hippie flower child.
And just love Peter King and The Girl From the North Country.
Can you ever forgive me?
To err is human.
To forgive is divine.
It's the forgiving part I have trouble with.
I found myself uneasily in tune with Professor Green's craggy, whine-fest.
But, one thing that sounded flat and a bit disingenuous in this piece was the omission of the fact that MJ was extremely talented.
I didn't like this article. I don't want to critique it, preferring to show those interested a REALLY GOOD article about MJ:
http://passedthecurve.
blogspot.com/
2009/06/michael-jackson-appreciation-of-his.html
(Connect the three parts above.)
It is by Jason King.
Comments?
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in Ethiopia who might disagree with Porfessor Green.
"We are the World" and USA for Africa was a major factor in feeding more than 12 million starving Ethiopians.
Make a Wish Foundation and 39+ other charities might also disagree with this assessment.
While Lennon was a great musician, where are the milions who were helped by his concern for humanity?
Many more people in the "west" knew John Lennon. many more people in the world knew Michael Jackson. Many more African kids were "moonwalking" to Thriller. Very few had ever heard of John Lennon.
Professor Green views Jackson from a white progressive point of view. We are afraid to admit that we also tried moonwalking. Since we are nerds we could never master the basics that millions of minority kids did easily.
Instead we worship rock stars like Bono, who hangs out with the elite who are destroying the world. His visit to Africa was a farce, but since he is hip, we applaud him.
We support the Clinton and Gates Foundations which are the true faces of neo-imperialism. Both Bill and Bill have made billions screwing the world, yet we are more concerned over "alleged" screwings by Michael Jackson.
And what about blowing up "brown" Muslims in the Middle East.
If you don't want to watch MSM, turn off the TV...but stopping bitching about a pathetic individual who brought much joy to the less well-off of the world.
There are also thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia who are starving to death and probably don't have the strength or faculties to even care who Micheal Jackson is or was.
Well, news for you. I haven't been moonwalking anywhere for the past 30 years. MJ tragic? Share some of what you've been smoking, please. It's been a dreary time, trying to escape all the misplaced hype about a boy-man, who like OJ early on, escaped justice at home. Abroad,he paid out millions for enjoying the pleasures of little boys.
That is libel
Under American law it is not possible to libel or slander a dead person. Therefore, I disagree with your assessment.
"It would be most unpleasant to admit to ourselves that one of our greatest cultural icons lacked depth."
Like Bush? Palin? Brittany? Paris? 99% of all TV, books and flicks?
Lack of depth is the new red, baby...
MSNBC was the worst offender on this. Full day coverage and Olbermann & Rachel covering it too. They lost what little cred they had.
What did you expect?
I think if anyone is seriously interested in listening to a music which expresses the dreadfull angst and sense of loss of an entire postwar generation, you'd have a hard time topping Springsteen.
Easy, Robert Zimmerman.
Amen. Also, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell and Neil Young.
There's pop music, and then there's timeless music. There are entertainers, and then there are artists. Musical icons, and musical geniuses.
I just heard "Like A Rolling Stone" on the radio. Written 45 years ago.
MJ was a pop music icon. Talent takes a back seat to youth and beauty in his world. Another (much younger) "musical sensation" will be along tomorrow to take his place.
Hey, fellow Lennon and Beatles fans!
Your comments are fab.
I've seen so much anti-Lennon/Beatles criticism over the decades that I rarely respond directly. It is mostly an issue of taste-- beginning with the grade-school division of "Beatles" vs. "Rolling Stones" fans, and even-- gack!-- "Beatles" vs. "Monkees" fans.
Later on I encountered more sophisticated esthetic, ideological, and political criticisms. They ceased to faze me long ago.
There's not a lot of room for dialogue, or anything but fractious debate, between a fan and a person who doesn't like the music anyway, and has already condemned the artist from an ideological perspective-- be it fundies burning Beatles records after John's "Jesus" remark, or criticism from the radical left denouncing the Beatles and their ilk as elitists, sell-outs, frauds, phonies, running dogs of the capitalist oppressors, tools, Judas goats, Pied Pipers...
To paraphrase a similar controversial artist: most likely they'll go their way and I'll go mine.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obedient Servant July 11th, 2009 2:28 pm ............ That's two for Bob in a row...right on!
Overall I cannot disagree with DMG's analysis... though I think it unwise to elevate anyone in the "entertainment" biz to metaphysician status - Beatles notwithstanding.
Michael Jackson proved to be of enormous value to an "Establishment" of mega-money-grubbing sociopaths in industry and gov't in that, while serving as a distraction from the daily bloodsucking of the Vampire Class, he allowed the great unwashed to feel good about themselves, while essentially listening to the equivalent of blossomimg NWO elevator music... something which made them feel good despite being devoid of content. The unfortunate dirge-apalooza orchestrated by the less-than-useless media whores to make Jackson into a modern day diety, is quite apropo of the current vacuousness DMG speaks of. For Chrissakes they even tried to make "HI I'M BILLY MAYS' into some taudry modern day icon to be worshiped... for his uncanny ability to sell worthless shit to worthless shits - I'm still waiting for my "ShamWOW". Note to self: "How could I have been duped by a product which had "sham" as part of its logo?"
It seems like the past month has offered up exits from this surreal world of a lot of high-profile notables - I can only wish the trend continues... and includes many of the high fliers from the Gov't and finance sector. I hopefully will have my ShamWOW to catch my abundant tears.
PS - Mordechai: Can you possibly hook me up with the tatooed SKANK you mentioned in your post??? ... I can relate to her message to humanity!
I especially like the point about the utter inanity of Jackson's songs and persona, as contrasted with Lennon, one of the greatest songwriters in history. The subsequent decades would have none of the 60's quest for meaning, but they kept the drugs and the flash.
I will not get into a silly argument over which entertainer advanced their art to the greater good of society, but I will say that MJ's sudden death would not have gotten the coverage it did if he was just an entertainer. I suppose it's all relative, but having the ability to get hordes of people around the world dancing in the streets to his moves and music, even in Chinese prisons, is a magical feat given the social, political, and economic differences we see across every culture. Micheal's ability to transcend cultural barriers and inspire people to do something other than to hold candles, cry, and stand still is not a trivial societal statement no matter how much you wish to be.
I also remember Lennon's 10 minutes of silence when I was a kid, but I only remember it because it shoved into my face while I was trying to watch my favorite tv show. Artists from different eras had different impacts for different people. Don't step on ours icons, we won't step on yours.
Phoenix:
As a sidebar to your MJ's "ability to get hordes of people around the world dancing in the streets to his moves and music, even in Chinese prisons, is a magical feat given the social, political, and economic differences we see across every culture".
In 1974 I was bicycling through a very remote part of former Yugoslavia (now Macedonia) wherby I happened upon a gypsy encampment and decided to join them out of extreme curiosity. While they had virtually nothing of what we would call conveniences - other than tents and covered wagons - the gypsy kids all knew the "Kung Fu" moves popularized by the David Carridine series of the time, even though they had no TV's. So, it just goes to show that pop culture has incredible leggs no matter the culture or lack thereof.
Because it may be pervasive does not therefor connote a degree of significance of worthfullness to the greater society... MJ, case in point.
I first realized there was something seriously wrong when MJ began dressing in the style of "Third World Dictator." I enjoyed some of MJ's work but basically regarded him as a freak show. Yes, I realize this is judgmental. He had one of the worst cases of body dysmorphic disorder we've ever seen, and while we can never know for sure, the charge of pedophile certainly rings true to me.
Comparisons: Lennon was a grownup who put his U.S. residency and life on the line to lead protests against the Vietnam War. He was considered such a domestic threat that the FBI surveilled him for years and Immigration tried to throw him out of the country. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court and vindicated the right to freedom of speech. He fought for what most of us take for granted, citizenship. Jackson, not so much, but he did involve himself in some charity.
MJ was a sad case. He actually thought he could get into bed with children and get away with it. Not in our culture, not when you are a deep pocket. I don't think Michael Jackson was a pedophile. The charge does NOT ring true. It's much more likely that he never grew into a mature male, was suffering from puer aeternus (Peter Pan) syndrome. His father should be locked up for child abuse. And now they want to give the grandkids to him.
Comparing MJ to John Lennon is like comparing apples to peas. Please don't.
I like your last sentence, Markley. So true. Which reminds me of a card I sent a friend with John Lennon's mom feeding him dinner with some peas on the plate and she says, "come on John, give peas a chance...."
I did not adore MJ, nor did I dislike him. I found his songs and videos entertaining, but I certainly do not consider him the greatest entertainer in the world. I also felt sorry for him.
I found the tribute to MJ crass and disgusting. To have the whole family, including little kids, all stand in front of millions of people expressing their loss, was really tasteless.
Also, what really annoyed me were the comments that MJ was the greatest entertainer the world has ever seen (and this was repeated by several people). There have been an awful lot of great entertainers in this world and MJ was a good one too but to dub him the greatest ever in the history of the world was ludicrous. Or...maybe it wasn't....
Maybe it was all a huge PR/Marketing ploy to create a huge commercial business and a dead MJ would become their cash cow. Sort of like the worshipping of Elvis and the millions visiting Graceland. Like someone said, MJ will be worth much more money dead than alive. Think of all the millions visiting NeverNeverLand and buying trinkets and toys - memorabilia - DVDs, posters, MJ dolls, etc. etc...of the "greatest entertainer that ever lived"
Someone is going to get awfully rich. Hope the kids don't get ripped off...
We are definitely on the same page, seethroughbs.
Alright! Enought with the dead celebrities already. When's the last time a deceased mother, father, or grandparent that worked three jobs to put there kids or grand kids through college, was honored in such a way? How about the person that gave their life for someone else? Or the person who spent there life in jail for speaking up against injustice?
I'm tired of society honoring any dead person that had a lot of worthless colored paper.
So some people hate the Beatles, "De gustibus non est disptutandum." Lots of people loved the Beatles, but did not like Elvis all that much; however, the Beatles liked Elvis a lot. It does seem that M. Jackson's popularity represented a real shallowness in our culture, but part of life should be dancing; the question is "how much?" The Beatles, however, did write most of their own music and played their own instruments. Never heard them diss Michael Jackson, though. M.J.'s life should be a warning on how not to live if you are rich and famous.
Perhaps an inquiry should be made as to how much his abused childhood contributed to M.Jackson's early death and the enrichment of his coterie.
Permanent ambient hysteria is a symptom of a mortally diseased and toxic culture.
Like malaria and other chronic diseases, even when the symptoms aren't acute, the sickness abides. And the flare-ups are painfully intense and debilitating.
The corporate media indeed functions as Sultans of Smarm-- the latter-day equivalent of professional mourners hired to establish and enforce the proper public expression of grief. Lately, the media approach is to determine the broadest prevailing emotional response, hype it into a tsunami of glurge, and ride the curl.
I will take issue with Green only to the extent that the juggernaut of posthumous megahype is more firmly established now than it was when Lennon was killed. If the present SOP had been operative when Lennon died-- and assuming that Yoko and Lennon's associates would have had only limited veto power and control over the unleashing of this juggernaut-- we might well have seen a Lennon Funeralpalooza comparable to Jackson's.
I enjoyed this article because Green's views echo mine, and because it's a welcome change of pace from his tedious and overlong screeds in which he desperately seeks to discover silver linings to the Obama cloud in which he recklessly invested such Hope®.
· Yr Obd't Servant
First, it is not wise to criticise an artist as lacking depth as if art is supposed to be there for the purpose of teaching us someting. If the artist happened to have a "serious" message, fine. If not, fine. Talking about John Lennon, there are many Beatles songs that do not have any serious messages. so what? I recall Donna Summer in the seventies and how she revolutionized disco. There is nothing serious about her art, but she was great.
Second, it is not wise either to criticize other people's tastes and judge them as superficial. What is so meaningful and serious about baseball, football, or ballroom dancing which I happened to like? I hate to see someone accusing me of being superficial because I spend hours aimlessly milling around a dance floor.
I don't like Michael Jackson at all, but I honor other people tastes. Mr. Green's article sounds like something written in the former Soviet Union when art has to be serious and to serve the state.
Mr. Green, chill out!
Awesome comment. I especially like the last two sentences, very clear- eyed.
What a stunnung exercise in hypocrisy this article really is.
John Lennon was an over-hyped, self important, pontificator, who functioned from such a realm of super-stardom, to say he was in touch with either the lives, or the daily concerns of any of his fans, is absolutely ridiculous.
He wasn't even capable of "scaling himself down" or ever pretending to have anything in common with the rest of humanity.
A real "elite" for the elites-is more like it. And his fans can't understand why his music doesn't have more popular appeal? E-l-i-t-e. One word covers it all.
He was so out-of-touch with the daily realities of the lives of his audience, it was incredible.
I have never been a Beatles fan-ever.
Remember Lennon and Yoko Ono telling everyone they had a room in their house-where all the funrniture was cut in half-because it challenged people to use their imaginations?
Who the hell were they to talk down to the rest of us? All they ever did was tell people what was right with their their spoiled, pampered, lives-and what was wrong with the rest of humanity.
It was every time they opened their self-indulgent mouths. I found it offensive and tiresome.
Talk about self-hatred. The Beatles-along with Lennon and Ono were in constant pursuit of anything and everything that they believed would somehow "change the quality of their existense."
If the author really wants to talk about "the poor litle rich boy" all he has to do is look at Lennon-he needs to look no further.
From different religions, to whacko diets, and experiences with drugs, that they believed would "bring them closer to God." Wow! How lucky for God-eh? Pretentious.
Every time you turned around the Beatles, Lennon, Yoko Ono-they were constantly re-inventing themselves-weren't they? Nothing was ever good enough for any of them-remember all that?
They were "muscians" for Chrisske. They had one job-that was to entertain. They weren't philosophers, they weren't geniuses, and they weren't anybody to be instructing the rest of us about the "spiritual quality" of our lives or anything else.
They had more money than God, more influence, more free-tme, and more opportunity-than any of the rest of us-to do exactly as they pleased-for however long they wished to indulge. Oh-yeah. They were in touch.
And they really did seem to believe their fame and fortune entitled them to constantly tell the rest of us what was wrong with our very existence. Thank God for them-eh?
Of course, if the rest of us had the income level they enjoyed we could re-invent ourselves, too, whenever we felt like it. As they did-and spent years and millions doing it.
While the rest of the world was licking their kneecaps, I was appalled.
They had one job-that was to entertain people. That's it-nothing more-nothing less. And in my book-they weren't even good at that.
I found them pretentious and condescending.
Like everyody could afford to take the time off, and spend a year with the Maharishi? And if we couldn't-we were what-crap?
We'd never be "holy" or in touch with "humanity?" Bullshit. In plain english.
Lennon was a genius?
Opinion is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
The author of this article-like his idol-is insistent on telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Bullshit on that, too.
Entitled to my opinion.
There is so much irrational anger in your post one wonders if you are in short supply of your pet durg.
A one sentence response. Lennon and Yoko lived in N.Y. and walked the streets just like everyone else. MJ lived in a isolated fairly land estate with generous supply of 12 year olds.
While greatbear is indeed entitled to his opinion it is completely discordant with my own.
Lennon grew up in working class Liverpool, was no elitist, and when he became famous used his position to promote his Progressive Agenda. I remember him mainly for "Give Peace a Chance". His activism was sufficient to merit a voluminous FBI file.
i guess this bear got up on the wrong side of the cage today......
if you live to bash the beatles bro then you need to repair back to the cave and reconsider your whole "thing"
mj was a tragic figure - to say the least
he was driven by a heartless father and being the only truly gifted brother in the band - and the youngest - i think was a disaster for him on so many levels
i remember reading years ago that the older brothers would bring groupies up to their hotel room and encourage mj to do his thing with them - and mj was horrified by that
these humiliations can be traumatic for a teenager during his formative years and i think part of mj's persona was as a result of his brother's pranks
comparisons to john lennon are feeble at best
john lennon was a man - mj was a child
john lennon largely created the whole anti-war movement of the 60's by being one of the few big celebrities who was willing to spend his cache on making points about the war in vietnam, and spend it he did
he stood up for peace in a way that no one else could
he was the subject of a mad nixon pogrom for many years - which he finally overcame
though he had his shortcomings he was always self effacing about himself and let's not forget that he left the most successful band in history at the height of their fame because he wanted to settle down with the woman he loved and get on with life
which he did - he took a lot of heat for that
for mj life was a cartoon
and a childish one at that
mj never had a chance in life to be a normal person
finally, the beatles comparisons should end with the music. beatles music is part of our culture - folks hum the tunes and will forever
who walks around humming ben - michaels's tribute to the star rat of a horror movie
Wow...bitter much?
Maybe their art and music didn't resonate for you, but Beatles, and John & Yoko, reached a lot of people with, yes, philosophy and genius, and vision.
You are definitely entitled to your own opinion...how does the old joke go...opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
But some stink more than others.
No, sorry, the Beatles weren't pretentious. They *skewered* pretention. Before the Beatles, TV interviewers would go up to people and say things like "What do you think of such-and-such? 50 million people are watching!" And the hapless interviewee would try to stutter something profound and meaningful. When TV journalists said to the Beatles, "50 million people are watching right now! What do you have to say to them?" They would respond with "Hi!".
The Beatles broke through all the crustiness and pretention of the era, just by being themselves. Which is part of the reason they took the world by storm.
And the Beatles weren't rich. They were appallingly ripped off by their record company and made relatively little money from their enormous success. It was only in latter years, where they were able to take more control over their affairs, that they made money.
Neither were they "self important pontificators". They had that role imposed upon them by a fawning media, and it's part of what caused them to split. In spite of their enormous fame, they remained remarkably down-to-earth and true in outlook to their working-class origins (remember when Lennon encouraged the upper class members of the audience not to applaud, but to "just rattle your jewelry"?) Lennon tried to parlay his fame into political influence, in the sense of promoting an antiwar message, but that's about it.
The irony of this thread is that the original commentator lambasts Michael Jackson because he had nothing to say, only to be followed by a poster who lambasts Lennon because he did. The artist can't win, can he?
Personally, what suprises me is that there are so *few* musicians with anything worthwhile to say. We should be doubly grateful then, for the few that do.
Yeah, we all need someone we can dream on
And if you want it, baby, well you can dream on me
Yeah, we all need someone we can cream on
And if you want to, well you can cream on me
Back in the day . . . Anyway, back in the day, people used to publicly attempt to make the circumstances of their lives sound better than they had actually been. Now we live in a million little pieces society where making your life sound worse, and far worse, is vastly preferred. The more fucked-up your life appears to have been, the more a figure of veneration you are. Where I live and work, too many kids aspire to be punks - rude, nasty, uneducated, always sneering, violent (real or imagined), chauvinistic pigs if they're males, skanks if they're females. And all are highly materialistic. It cuts across all racial and ethnic divides and even class barriers. It's all around me, every day of the week. Like the grossly overweight young woman with her rack hanging out of a shirt three sizes too small. Tattooed across the top of her breasts are the words: EAT SHIT, YOU MOTHERS. I repeat, this is everywhere around me. Am I supposed to feel good about this? Am I totally out of it? Am I a fogey, a geezer? Is Cold Play better than Hendrix, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who or Stevie Ray Vaughan? I don't think so. And there's certainly no one around like Howlin' Wolf anymore. Looking at it all through my eyes, this is truly The Age of George Wanker Bush.
Sioux Rose
Or T.S Elliot's, "The Wasteland." Quite a picture you painted here, Mordechai. Many from this generation have been fed a diet of culture that is equivalent to its G.M. (genetically modified) equivalent in terms of nourishment, or the absence of same.
People who do not understand or appreciate MJ shouldn't write articles about him. Simple as that.
People who do not understand or appreciate [George Bush} shouldn't write articles about him. Simple as that.
Ummm, maybe not. MJ was not worth the hoopla that the media spewed over the last few weeks.
So if I don't think you understand MJ or appreciate what he really was all about, you can't post about him, is that it?
Agreed. Articles like these continue the "us v. them" scenario and this is so sad. MJ was able to make us all feel connected with each other through his music and his ability to bring joy to people wherever he went.
People like this guy should go pontificate at some redneck bar.
I remember after John Lennon's death, Yoko called for 10 minutes of silence as a memorial to her slain husband. It was such a profound 10 minutes, I shall never forget it. It was a cloudy wet day in Boston, but for that short time the sun peeked out. And the people in the park became still and reflective. Compare that to the phoney hoopla of the MJ affair. (Donetella dresses the Entire Jackson Family!)We have become a souless and ignorant society
Wow. What a gutsy article. I have no doubt that it will not be well received by a population still bloated from the orgy of Michael Jackson's life and death, that "memorial" being little more than an opportunity for a bunch of has-been attention whores to step into the spotlight one more time. The only people with any right to speak at that "service" were MJ's family members and yet Jackson's own father abused the situation.
Green makes a valid point.
q
And somehow, California, supposedly totally bankrupt, found a million and a half bucks for MJ's funeral...hmmmm....how broke can they be, eh?
An old woman who charged a pittance to wash my clothing asked for more money to get her son out of jail.
"He recovered quick," I replied. "Last week I gave you money because he was dying and hospitalized; this week he's not only up and about, he's in trouble with the law. One can't get in so much trouble."
"No," she replied, "but a woman can have more than one son."
Which California are you talking about?
"Do not say 'Why were the former days better than these?' You do not inquire wisely concerning this."---Ecclesiastes
But like the author it seems that way sometimes. Being young was tough though. Even if my back hurts and I am alone and I feel sorry for young people who seem to be happy, (if they only knew what was waiting for them) I wouldn't be young again for a million dollars.
What a pity that every new generation has to learn the same hard lessons .
"Do not say 'Why were the former days better than these?' You do not inquire wisely concerning this."---Ecclesiastes
But like the author it seems that way sometimes. Being young was tough though. Even if my back hurts and I am alone and I feel sorry for young people who seem to be happy, (if they only knew what was waiting for them) I wouldn't be young again for a million dollars.
What a pity that every new generation has to learn the same hard lessons .
"Do not say 'Why were the former days better than these?' You do not inquire wisely concerning this."---Ecclesiastes
But like the author it seems that way sometimes. Being young was tough though. Even if my back hurts and I am alone and I feel sorry for young people who seem to be happy, (if they only knew what was waiting for them) I wouldn't be young again for a million dollars.
What a pity that every new generation has to learn the same hard lessons .
How about ten million dollars?
q
PS If you accidentally multipost, at least clean up after yourself.
Not for any amount of money. I've never been on top, but I don't believe this system makes even the richest among us happy, or offers meaning, or makes us more compassionate.
I don't know how to delete comments. Would be grateful for instructions.
I would welcome a USER "delete" option incorporated into the edit feature, but if there's one here it's news to me.
However, one can replace the text in duplicate posts with a message like "duplicate post" or delete text entirely. At least the reader doesn't waste time re-reading with the expectation that there's something new.
Perhaps that's what was meant by "clean-up".
· Yr Obd't Servant
Actually. The edit function doesn't even allow deleting all the text. You must at least leave a single character.
.
I'm about the same age that Lennon would have been today, and I felt about him when he died exactly the way you do about Jackson.
Good point. Art and artists are difficult to judge, but we have to, they help define our own lives. Context is everything with them. Jackson was an entertainer, Lennon tried to be a poet. Yet Jackson, oddly, touched many at the level of a poet, and even today you can go through his songs, as Green does, and not find the reason why. Green says this is evidence of vacuousness. But I think thats dangerous. I don't think people lead vacuous lives or unsubstantial ones. By virtue of being people, their lives are substantial. Perhaps what Green means is that, in this case, they are substantially tragic. I could agree with that. Over the last 30 years, we've all be moonwalking our way toward a cliff and like lemmings are now jumping. But this makes Jackson, the pop artist, tragic, not merely unsubstantial. We want our artists to lead us to a better place, away from the cliff. But when they do, as with Van Gogt, we often don't follow. We keep them in the wilderness.