Michael Jackson and the Death of Monoculture

I think Lester Bangs was making a bad use of the word we (as in “we will never again agree on anything as we agreed on Elvis. Who is we? Is he talking about the thousands of musicians Presley influenced,  as well as the millions of fans he had at the precise momeent he came up with that infamous sentence, or   was he actually forgetting to mention the millions who could never stand him, in the press, and throughout the world, for that matter. And isn’t it ironic that just as he was wrong then, you are probably twice as wrong today, when you say that “we will likely never even be as aware of an artist as we were aware of Jackson”. 

Let’s meet here, say,  in 30 years time (2039),  and see which one of the two, Presley or Jackson,  will the general public be talking about the most. I’m betting on Presley.

Comment by Jim Burrows from Sao Paulo, Brazil — July 8, 2009 @ 12:25 am

I agree with Jim.

Jackson’s career from beginning to end was a non-event for me, other than it created more dross to sort through.  He was the emperor’s new star….rather MOR when you looked directly at him; no edges only a star in the old “Look at me” fashion with half the population buying into it.

He sold a lot of vinyl but Transformers will sell a fill a lot of seats too.  Even if I am in the minority in lacking any appreciation for this fellow (and my argument is not so much with him as it is with the hyperbole surrounding him at a time when so many stronger artists were and are producing remarkable music)I am not alone…the “we” is presumptuous.

Comment by Paul Bergen from Canada — July 8, 2009 @ 9:37 am

Are we actually worse off without superstars? I was an adult when MJ was at his heyday, helping to consolidate power and money with the major labels. Not all of us were, then (or now), in support of this monoculture that you seem to be so nostalgic for. And as for his musical genius, I’d rather pin that title on someone who wrote music, played an instrument or two, and actually acknowledged the people who paved the way for him to succeed. MJ was none of those things and no amount of idolizing him in retrospect can change the facts.

Comment by Tart from Chicago — July 8, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

@Tart Oh my, how stingy of you… reserve the word “genius” if you want to, but really, why be such a Scrooge about it? Dylan couldn’t dance to save his life, nor McCartney! Michael Jackson was undeniably a child prodigy, and that is often the mark of natural genius. But he worked his ass off too; and, what are you talking about? He frequently gave credit to those who inspired him and after whom he modeled himself artistically. But he always had it clear that he wanted to break molds. He was obsessed with being original. 

But to the topic at hand… It’s reported that Michael Jackson was already talking about death and dying in 2001—and in his speech at Oxford he talks about feeling 80 years old. (I can only imagine that he must have felt like 200 years old after his trial.) He reportedly had said he didn’t want to go out like Marlon Brando—fading away, slowly slipping into obscurity.

But Dylan and McCartney won’t create the sensation that Michael Jackson has in death if they simply fade away. Yes, their musical genius will inspire for generations, but genius that Dylan is, he is currently on tour with John Melloncamp and Willie Nelson; and I don’t believe they are sold out shows. Jackson’s shows in London were sold out in days. 

Michael was a shrewed man and knew full well that the idols of his youth that died precipitously were immortalized. And he wanted just that for himself (a quintessentially masculine desire by the way). I can’t believe that his drug habit(s) weren’t part of a greater plan… he may have gone sooner than expected, and I’m not saying it was suicide, but he had to have known the risks he was taking with his own life. No one takes the kinds of drugs he was taking, in those quantities, and doesn’t know the risk of death. The nature of addiction is such that the person doesn’t care, and often welcomes the idea of dying.

As to the end of monoculture, I’m not so sure about that…. presumably human beings and their cultural world isn’t going to end too soon, so there’s a long way into the future. We may simply be in a period of fragmentation and splintered attention. It may even last for generations. But that’s not to say that one hundred or two hundred years from now things won’t be radically different. In the meantime, enjoy the liberation from corporate control that comes with the death of monoculture!

Comment by laprofe63 from Chicago — July 24, 2009 @ 10:52 am

@Tart
Someone who wrote his own music? Who do you think wrote “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough”; “Billie Jean”; “Beat It”; “Wanna Be Startin’ Something”; “P.Y.T (Pretty Young Thing)”; “We Are The World”; “Bad”; “Dirty Diana”; “The Way You Make Me Feel”; “Smooth Criminal”; “Black or White”; “Heal the World”; “Jam”...I could go on and on, but you’d get bored after reading for 20 minutes.
Someone who played an instrument or two? I’m sorry, since when were piano, percussion, and guitar not perceived as instruments?
Someone who acknowledged those who paved his success for him? So he DIDN’T acknowledge his tyrannical a**hole of a father, or Berry Gordy, or Diana Ross? No, he did. AND, he loved his fans.

Michael Jackson has contributed more than anyone else to the world, both musically and in his charities. He healed the world through his music and his actions. He is an idol, a superstar, a legend, an icon, and a hero, for many.

And, let’s not forget the DANCE.

:)
(Don’t try arguing with me…these are the facts. Deal with it.)

Comment by Haley — October 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

On Thriller, Michael Jackson has sole writing credit on only 4 out of 9 songs. And Paul Anka has been given 50% of song writing credit for Jackson’s latest song, “This Is It.” It is well-known that Jackson was not a proliferate song writer and often had Quincy Jones and others in the studio assist, or collaborate. He never showed considerable skill on a musical instrument. In many interviews he disclosed openly his method of songwriting which amounted to singing melodies into a tape recorder and later adding lyrics and bringing that material into a studio for other musicians to add instrumental parts. And you can argue all you want about who he paid dues to, but there are plenty in the music community that did not receive their share.

If you would like to remember him as an entertainer extraordinaire, that’s fine. But don’t insult musicians everywhere by declaring his accomplishments as a businessman to be musicianship. That’s like saying the car salesman who has the most dealerships with the highest profile contributes the most to the auto industry! Gimme a break! Who makes cars? Who designs cars? Let’s get the facts and terms right here. That’s my point.

Comment by Tart from Chicago — October 29, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

Since when is VOICE not an instrument? Go to any music school in the nation and there are classes in VOICE—it doesn’t have to be man-made to be an instrument, Tart. The musicianship of Michael Jackson is all the more incredible because it came with limited formal training. And, his talent was much bigger than merely playing an instrument well (his voice), or writing good songs, or even dancing, or arranging, or choreography or conceptual design, etc., etc. He DID IT ALL! 

And what good are designers and factory workers if you don’t have those star car salesmen across the nation actually selling their work? That’s what the high profile artist does—sell the work of all the people who contribute to the end product. That is INDUSTRY modus operandi and isn’t in the control of the artist him/herself. The entertainment industry, like all of corporate America, prefers to highlight single individuals and over-pay them, rather than support collaborative collectives.

Comment by laprofe63 from Chicago — October 30, 2009 @ 6:29 am