Thread: Michael Jackson: dead at age 50

I don't have a TV so I imagine I am missing a lot of the all important media circus action on this one.

Originally Posted by Sharke

I can't think of any of his songs that were really good pieces of music. How did he "change the face of music forever"? Or are we talking about a very narrow band of influence within a narrow band of Top 40 pop?

I never bought an MJ album, and I won't claim to be a huge fan, but if "really good music" in the "top 40 pop" genre means catchy tunes, he is responsible for a lot of really good music.

I do think that from the very beginning many of his songs were lyrically advanced from a poli-sci perspective and still sound that way today, so he could not help but "change the face of music forever". He also was a pioneer in the edgy, slightly dark and disconcerting androgeny of 80's pop. Altho it may seem ubiquitous or cliched today, the fact that it could now seem ubiquitous or cliched is an accomplishment in itself. Micheal Jackson did not end up a cultural icon for no reason.

He may have sold way more records, but he was no John Lennon. Did he write his own music? Was he a musician, or simply a "performer"? I can't think of any of his songs that were really good pieces of music. How did he "change the face of music forever"? Did any of his songs actually change the music scene? Or are we talking about a very narrow band of influence within a narrow band of Top 40 pop?

The fact that you have to ask that shows me you know little about music or the history of pop music. Yes he changed the face of pop music forever and he influenced many musicians along the way. Several called in to VH1 and MTV to say without Michael they wouldn't be in the industry. He was not perfect by any means but we don't remember people for being perfect we remember them for what they accomplished along the way.

Originally Posted by valaris

Someone like me finds child molestation outrageous. Someone like you may feel that a few top 40 records excuse this.

Let me try and explain to you what I find positively outrageous about Michael Jackson.

That after his death, and after this many years since the 1993 allegations and the 2004 trial people still accuse him of child molestation out of complete ignorance and unaccountability.

Michael was acquitted on all accounts and proven innocent.
Jackson cleared of child molestation | Music | guardian.co.uk

It's your prerogative that you may want to ignore a court decision (and thus refuse any faith on the judicial system with all its consequences). It's also your prerogative that you may want to ignore the fact everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who knew well and were close to Michael, among them such irreproachable people as Liz Taylor gave their testimony in court saying that Michael could never have done such a thing to a child. You may even want to ignore the fact that in reality you have no proof he did these things, but still accuse him of such.

God forbid one day you finding yourself on the other side of the walk of life being aired as a pedophile, and after your innocence is proven, you will still have to deal with the ignorant and ravenous of the world who will keep preying on you.

Naturally, you choose the bombastic title to support the claim it was a payoff. And of Smoking Gun website, no less. Along with TMZ and others, websites specialized in gossip and slander. I, myself prefer Associated Press, BBC, NBC, and others. See the difference?

What I do not do is make an outrageous claim without feeling confident about it. And for me to feel confident on anything, I research. Extensively. You see, despite my unaccountability, I do not feel comfortable accusing people basing myself on incomplete information, and gossip magazines. It makes me look bad. Get it? Or do I need to spell it out to you, how it makes you look?

The 1993 allegations and the 2004 Trial case.

1. The 1993 allegations were deemed inadmissible in court by the judge.

2. The settlement establishes that there was in fact no child molestation. It was signed by both parties.

3. The settlement was made against Michael Jackson wishes. His legal representatives, family and friends wanted for a settlement. Why? Because during the accusations period and media coverage (particularly gossip media responsible for what you call "Michael Jackson is seen by a major population as a pedophile") Michael went into deep depression, became dependent on drugs and his health deteriorated dangerously. There's hospital entry records, medical testimonies and admission records on the rehab clinic he was forced to go. His friends and family feared he would not be able to sustain the even more exposition of a trial.

...

The fact is that gossip media did what they do best. They destroy lives. And people buy for the love of it. The "major part of the population" as you call it, don't buy the New York Times and doesn't read the Associated Press. They buy US Weekly and OK!, or The Sun in UK. They buy this crap and you just need to compare the circulation numbers of a serious newspaper and that of a celebrity magazine. And what do these magazines explore? Exactly the fact most people don't want to think for themselves. They want someone else to do the thinking and them just be served with the results. Our culture has become so asinine that a website like the Smoking Gun or TMZ can display the entire settlement text and they know nobody will bother to read it, much less interpret its contents or compare it to previous statements or news from other sources. They'll just buy whatever the big letters in the title of the article will tell them even if they are outright lies.

>> Someone like me finds child molestation outrageous. Someone like you may feel that a few top 40 records excuse this.

I agree with you, but the investigation was inconclusive (irrespective of the court ruling, that is). To be fair, we should give him the benefit of doubt until/unless we have evidence to indicate otherwise.

>> Michael Jackson is seen by a major population as a pedophile.

Though not by the mother of the accuser:

"An official investigation began, with Jordan Chandler's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part. Neverland Ranch was searched; multiple children and family members denied that he was a pedophile." (source: Wikipedia)

Furthermore, the father of the accuser was recorded as saying:

"If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over" (source: Wikipedia)

Sounds suspicious to me, anyway. As far as the settlement goes, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) it was actually related to Jackson's violation of an agreement to not publicly accuse the family of any wrongdoing, or lying, etc (which he broke by making such statements to the press), and not to the abuse case (where he was found innocent).

Originally Posted by valaris

I'm glad you feel so strongly about Michael Jackson. See you at the candle light vigil. Or maybe not...

Guilty until proven otherwise and guilty after proven innocent, right?
Popular justice at its best.

As for Michael Jackson, I do admire and respect his work, yes. Particularly during the 80s when his geniality shown through. Slowly I lost interest during the 90s. I felt he went into an easy and highly marketable path of "humanitarian" themed songwriting that I could never identify myself with. Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad will thus remain to me his signature albums.

I'm by no means a die hard fan, though. I'm not of anyone when it comes to music or acting. Only classical music produced names that I could consider myself a die-hard fan. Of the arts, painting and writing are those two areas that touch me the most and where I'm willing to open myself to such levels of admiration.

It doesn't bother me that you think that in defense of Michael Jackson, that places me as a die-hard fan. That all my argumentation is reduced to the drivel of a blind follower. I felt you needed the disclaimer above. But that's about it. I've heard enough of you to understand that it's doesn't matter what I can say in my defense. To you, it only matters what your guts tell you.

EDIT: Ah yes, the Bashir's documentary.
Here... read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_...ichael_Jackson (especially point 4) And read other news on that. Again... research much, do you?

>> He spent a few months at neverland ranch and approached michael at the end with his concerns after multiple children (cancer patietns etc...) admitted to sleeping in his bed etc. You can probably find it on youtube or google video if really interested.

It is very wierd behavior, but coming from a person as eccentric as he was, it's difficult to definitively say whether or not this was pedophilic in nature. It's possible that he held the delusion that he, too, was a child, and thus felt that the idea of sharing a bed "with friends" as normal and healthy. Generally, I think you'll find that people who exhibit schizophrenic or similar disorders exhibit behaviour that just doesn't make sense. Condider, for instance, naturalist Timothy Treadwell. This guy was so delusional that he felt perfectly comfortable with approaching wild bears, and even "breaking up fights" between them! Is this sane? Is it reasonable or realistic? Of course not (he was later killed in a bear attack). My point is, you have to keep things in perspective and be objective when trying to identify the motivations and intentions of a person like this.

>> I'm by no means a die hard fan, though.

I wouldn't consider myself as a diehard fan, either. As a very young boy, back in the 1970's, I enjoyed the Jackson 5 quite a bit, and during the early 1980's, as a preteenager, like so many my age, I was practically obsessed with his music. But by 1986 I had basically lost complete interest in his music (as well as the rest of Top 40) and moved on to punk rock. I never really listened much to his music again after that.

But I still appreciate his work, and from time to time I'll even listen to one of his songs. I'll even do a bit of moon-walking every now and then. In contrast, there are a lot of bands that I use to love that I can't even stand to listen to now. Michael Jackson's music isn't like that. It has an undeniable groove, and a timeless quality that sets it apart from so much that has been produced by the music industry. It just doesn't fade away.

>> In fact if you trace back through the history of popular music you will see that those who have influenced pop the most are very rarely international superstars and showmen like Michael Jackson.

The question is really subjective. You can't simply define "influential" as mere imitation of sound. He put certain feeling into his music. He performed with an attitude. He had a unique sense of style. And so forth. All of these things can "influence" others in one form or fashion.

>> Of course, I agree with you. But it doesn't help to portray him as something he wasn't. Let's remember him for who he was - a fantastic showman, a great dancer, a great singer, a very complicated and sensitive guy who brought joy to millions. Just not a "musical trailblazer."

That's one mans opinion, anyway. The bottom line is, though, is that there are many who feel he made a *huge* impact, and you can't simply write that off as a gross exaggeration from misguided fans. There is a reason why he is called "The King of Pop", you know!