Michael Jackson who has featured on this site in the past died on Thursday, June 25. Therefore, as an odd tribute to his talent as a musician, we have put together this list of the most bizarre and scandalous moments in his 50 years.
In the 18-minute music video for “Bad”—directed by Martin Scorsese—Jackson began using sexual imagery and choreography not previously seen in his work. He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch. While he has described this as “choreography,” it garnered a mixed reception from both fans and critics; Time magazine described it as “infamous”. The racy “crotch grab” dance move became Jackson’s trademark. The move is commonly seen in today’s music videos but at the time, the crotch grabbing shocked the world.
In 1979, Jackson broke his nose during a complex dance routine. His subsequent rhinoplasty surgery was not a complete success; he complained of breathing difficulties that would affect his career. He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson’s second rhinoplasty and other subsequent operations. Many believe that he used this as an excuse to get a nose job. In 1993, the popstar stated that he had only had two cosmetic operations – on his nose and chin – done, for medical reasons. His extreme physical transformation suggests that he’s had more than just two, however.
After Jackson reportedly cancelled numerous concerts in 1999, Munich event organiser and Jackson’s friend Marcel Avram lodged a complaint of ‘breach of contract’ against the singer. Jackson then threw the same charge at Avram. After a tug of war in the court room, the two friends managed to come to an agreement.
When Hurricane Katrina ripped through New Orleans, Jackson promised to record a song about the disaster to aid charity. He worked on the project with artists from London and Los Angeles, according to reports in the autumn of 2005 — but the single never eventuated.
In a bizarre twist on the “rags to riches” genre, Michael returned to rags after pouring out enormous quantities of money in defending himself in the various lawsuits against him in recent years. Reports of financial problems for Jackson became frequent in 2006 after the closure of the main house on the Neverland Ranch as a cost-cutting measure. One prominent financial issue for him concerned a $270 million loan secured against his music publishing holdings. After delayed repayments on the loan, a refinancing package shifted the loans from Bank of America to debt specialists Fortress Investments. Jackson had been one of the world’s richest popstars, reportedly worth several hundred million dollars in the 1990s.
Jackson’s home “Neverland” contained, among other things, a zoo and a theme park, with a Ferris wheel, merry-go-round, zipper, spider, sea dragon, wave swinger, super slide, dragon wagon kiddie roller coaster, and bumper cars. It is named after Neverland, the fantasy island in the story of Peter Pan, where children never grow up. On February 25, 2008, Jackson received word from Financial Title Company, the trustee, that unless he paid off $24,525,906.61 by March 19, a public auction would go forward of the land, buildings, and other items such as the rides, trains, and art. On May 12, 2008, a foreclosure auction for the ranch was canceled after an investment company, Colony Capital LLC, purchased the loan. Jackson was in default on the $24.5 million owed on the 2,500-acre (10 km2) property. In a press release, Jackson stated, “I am pleased with recent developments involving Neverland Ranch and I am in discussions with Colony and Tom Barrack with regard to the Ranch and other matters that would allow me to focus on the future.”
In 2002, Jackson brought his new born son (Prince Michael Jackson II – also known as Blanket) onto the balcony of his hotel room in Berlin, as fans stood below. Holding him in his right arm, with a cloth loosely draped over the baby’s face, Jackson briefly extended the baby over the railing of the balcony, four stories above ground level, causing widespread criticism in the media. Jackson later apologized for the incident, calling it “a terrible mistake”.
This is undoubtedly the most controversial scandal that occurred in Michael Jackson’s life. In 2003, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child sexual abuse and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit a child sexual abuse felony against Gavin Arvizo, who was under 14 at the time. Earlier that year, a Granada Television documentary, called Living with Michael Jackson, showed the pop star holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with Arvizo. Jackson denied these allegations, saying that the sleepovers were in no way sexual in nature. Jackson was found not guilty but this ultimately ended his music career.
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia. Some information courtesy of Bild with thanks.
Excuse me but Baxter, why are you looking at it from the view of America? How everyone else views Jackson, Presley, Lennon, or Sinatra? Why don’t you be yourself and remember them in the way that you want to, instead of trying to jump down people’s throats? I’ll remember all of the for what great musicians they were and for their talent, not for mistakes that they’ve made. Who *****ing cares how everyone else will think of these people, it doesn’t matter. Remember them the way that you want to. Maybe you don’t think that they were that great of musicians, but maybe you respected them. Or maybe you’ll remember them for the mistakes that they made throughout their life, but in any damn case, think for yourself and not for others.
I’m not trying to say this rudely or anything, I’m just saying that this list shouldn’t be bothering anyone because it’s one person’s take on his death. Everyone has their own take on it and how they will remember them, so why does arguing in stupid comments have any relevance?
Very sad moment for many popstars and fans. Rest in piece, Michael Jackson.
…that being said and after reading Randall´s gargantuan post, I would like to add that the kingdom I mention obviously and exclusively refers to the mass media hype.
Nicolelodean, while I see where you are coming from, I also feel that Listverse is a community. There’s a comments box so that people can comment on the list. If I think this list is cynical, trite and spiteful then I’ll say so. Similarly, you have a right to disagree with me if that’s how you feel. But I have as much right to disagree with this list and some of the comments posted as you do to disagree with my comments. That is the ‘beauty’ of the internet.
And what do you mean about America? I’m not American.
“I’ll remember all of the for what great musicians they were and for their talent, not for mistakes that they’ve made.”
*****ing ditto, mate.
Randall: I agree with most everything you’ve said but I would beg to differ about his skills. That boy can dance – as well as Gregory Hines and that’s saying much. He brought back soft shoe, invented popping, and his moves…have me in awe. Even the crotch grabbing somehow fit. Very talented. Not so fond of the girly falsetto singing, but the package deal was pretty awesome.
Also isn’t Lennon remembered by many as being the guy who said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus? (probably a true fact at the time btw)
This list is not very respectful. R.I.P MJ. Greatest musical genius.
I didn’t mean to say “America” persay, I meant it as a group think. As in, it’s portrayed that the masses remember these people for the wrongs and mistakes they’ve made in their lives, instead of forming their own ultimate opinion about it and not conforming and thinking “well hey, yeah, he did have mistakes, and he was a bad person!” and blahblahblah. I respect everyone’s opinion on this site and in real life, but I just felt the need to comment that they are only opinions. Even if we disagree with them, you can’t try to change someone’s. Instead its better just to view it the way you want to, and keep faith in that.
Thanks MJ
Baxter:
Trying to defend nonsense just makes you look inane and stupid, Baxter. Back off and stop and think about what you’re saying. Are you HONESTLY… *HONESTLY*… going to sit here and try to tell me that Michael Jackson EVER deserved, for a MOMENT, the plaudits and fame HEAPED on him?
How was he better than Jackie Wilson? Marvin Gaye? Sam Cooke? Otis Redding? Answer: he wasn’t. Pure and simple. He was, compared to them, middling. But the true level of his talent (I never said he was UNtalented) mattered far less than the HYPE which was inflated around him.
“I don’t give a ***** about celebrity or fame.”
The HELL you don’t. Or you wouldn’t be sitting here trying to argue that Michael Jackson actually somehow deserved or deserves the fawning adoration given him by a cynical media and a deluded public. You’ve bought into it as much as anyone else.
“I’m talking about talent whether it is your cup of tea, Randall, or not. Yes, people do still LISTEN to Jackson’s music – frequently when I go out clubbing this song is spun by the DJ……and the crowd ALWAYS goes nuts.”
Oh, so the reaction of a bunch of kids in a club who are otherwise bereft of good pop (there’s less and less of it produced each succeeding year) to one song proves he was the greatest talent in 30 years? You’re reaching. WAY reaching.
No ***** people still listen to him, Baxter. I never said people didn’t LISTEN TO HIM, period. I asked how many people HONESTLY can say they still listen to him. Some, sure. But my money is on that number declining sharply over the coming years. Because there quite simply isn’t that much there to care about.
“And like it or not, Randall, Michael Jackson was not a “middling” talent. Have you seen the guy dance?”
Oh, so that’s the measure of his talent now? His choreography? So… what? Michael Jackson was a great dancer, and that adds value to his music?
Jackie Wilson could do some awesome ***** on stage too, Baxter. But his music is remembered more than that. YOU, on the other hand, just made my argument for me. Jackson was a product of the Music Video generation. His reputation rests largely on that—the gyrations and moves he produced as visual accompaniment to songs that were, IN FACT, otherwise of low to middling grade—or downright worthless.
“You’re complaining that he has been built up by the media into some sort of idol,”
NO, I’m not just “complaining” about this—-I’m stating it as FACT. I was there. I was born in 1965, saw Michael Jackson with the Jackson Five when he was a kid, and saw him produce a small handful of fairly minor hits over the subsequent years, and then saw the kind of media-driven insanity that went WAY out of proportion for him, in the wake of “Thriller,” and it was obvious THEN that it was all bull*****. I was FAR from the only one who recognized this at the time. The 80s were UTTERLY lacking for a big “pop” hero, and so one was manufactured for us.
“But this is the same media that tried him and found him guilty of paedophilia.”
Again, no *****, Baxter. That the media is capricious and will turn on its own creations ought to be no surprise. The idea is to sell product. Jackson was a product whether he was sold as “good” or “bad.”
And by the way… do I take it from your tone that you excuse his alleged paedophilia? That you dismiss the charges?
“The fact that that media has swung all the way around now to mourn the man should not be lamented – if all they wanted to talk about was his undeniable weirdness then I would truly assume Western culture to be up ***** creek.”
You are claiming that you actually base the health of Western culture on how they report on and look back on the life of a pop star?
NO, Baxter—THAT is more of a sign of the danger that Western culture might be in—that you can actually make that claim. Unbelievable.
“But that doesn’t change the fact that those albums are amongst the biggest-selling of all time.”
Record sales have only so much to do with actual TALENT, Baxter. I can’t believe I have to keep returning to this point. This obvious truth seems to escape people time and time again. I could cite you dozens of crap “talents” who have sold millions of records over the decades. This proves what to you? That those people must be artistic geniuses? On what would you base this?
“He may have lost it, but to deny he had it in the first place is simply incorrect.”
A) I never denied Jackson had SOME talent. Rather, I questioned that he ever had the HUGE, galactic-sized talent people have made him out to have. B) on what would you base the claim that he HAD some great, huge talent earlier on? On what specifically? What great artistic contribution did he make that placed him in such lofty heights?
“I wonder if, when Jack Nicholson dies, Mr Frater will decide to post a list of his *****ual transgressions?”
Why not? Jack Nicholson too, to my thinking, is an overrated, hyped up “talent” who also deserves to have his memorial balloon pricked a bit.
“And I wonder if you, Randall, will applaud that list since Mr Nicholson has never turned out a performance on a par with his seventies successes?”
Yes I would, Baxter—because unlike you, I recognize that there is a polarity of difference between an artist’s or actor’s true contributions and the CELEBRITY that has been built up and inflated around him.
The undisputed king of pop is now dead. Me here in India saw a small rally of well wishers holding pictures and wearing T-Shirts of MJ, were mourning his death.
He is probably the most well know or heard singer/dancer of all time .
Lets remember for his songs and not for the above reasons.
May his Soul rest in Peace..
I’m not a fan of Michael’s, but I also think this should’ve been a more positive list. Or possibly one about celebrity deaths. In the last month alone there was Michael Jackson, of course, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon and David Carradine – I apologize if I missed any. A tribute list would be nice to see. May they all rest peacefully.
@Randall (108): Eloquently put, as always. I never bought into the hype of MJ. I like his music, just like I like Elvis and The Beatles.
Honestly, people need to lighten up around here. Each and everyone of us have a skeleton or two in the closet. MJ just had a few more than most.
I don’t read the newspaper or follow celebrity news so some of these on the list were a surprise to me. I for one am glad we get to see a different side to people other than the fame and hype the media is known for pushing on us.
I wasnt going to comment further on this but Baxter’s blind adoration of MJ is incredibly narrow-minded and his view of sampling is also something that needs addressing.
The most sampled musician in history, and also really the most overlooked act when it comes to this musical genre that MJ clung to the coat tails of, is James Brown.
“The Godfather of Soul”, James Brown was considered by many to be the most legendary artist on the planet until his death. With hits including “Papa’s Got a brand new bag”, “Get Up (***** Machine)”, “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World” and “I Feel Good (I Got You)” he is the most sampled musician in history. He was still touring into his seventies, and was known as, “The hardest working man in showbusiness”.
Now if you are going to discuss this musical genre in any depth then you need to understand that MJ was a pale (err…..again insert random joke here………) and rather pathetic James Brown imitator.
Randall I agree with your quotes, but again many of the real musicians musicians are very rarely considered when they lose their lives. Stevie Ray Vaughn was a huge loss to the music world barely recognised in the media at the time. And god forbid we lose Chuck Berry who really is the King of Rock and Roll and it is only through racial issues in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s that he is not recognised as such.
MJ is a product and the architect of his own downfall, known more for his personal life than his music. Mass celebrity media manipulator but an act worthy of adoration, I dont think so
The celebrity-worship boat left me on the island a long time ago.
People who are famous for being famous?
Reality television ‘stars’?
Ultra-short-term nostalgia (‘I Love 2008′, no doubt currently being written with suitable vox pops from Big Brother contestants and *****ty quasi-comedians who would otherwise be out of work)?
***** all that.
If you want to see an example of this taken to its most extreme track down and watch a documentary called “Wacko about Jacko” – it truly is scary in a fascinating car-crash kind of way…
“But honestly, who LISTENS to Instant Karma any more?”
I do.
Randall: you are wrong, chin up old man!
Jfrater: shoddy journalism! Not just here but all the recent articles.
Anyway, I blame it on the boogie
Baxter:
“Indeed. Songs which he didn’t write or produce. Songs which were derivative of black music and for which the talents other than those of the singer were not well-rewarded.”
This is an excellent point. However, it also is a point that many singers are remembered simply for their ability to make a song memorable and accessible. THAT is what Elvis did, and the real reason why he’s remembered. Me, I’m frankly not a fan, not a big one anyway. I like some of his stuff very much, of course—but I rank the Beatles far higher, and rank people like Sam Cooke and Otis Redding higher as well. But many singers didn’t write their own material. Their talent was therefore in their voice and presentation. Big whoop. You’ve made no point there.
“Regardless, Elvis is remembered fondly and has fans all over the world (myself included in that number). And though we remember the fact that he died on the toilet, the shadow of his arse does not cast itself over his undeniable talent as a singer.”
Because he DID have a truly great talent, yes. Jackson had talent—but NOT *as* great. He simply did not. And if you’re going to argue that he did, I’d demand that you stand up and prove it.
“Indeed. But honestly, who LISTENS to Instant Karma any more? By this token, shouldn’t we remember the arrogant headkicking peace-lover rather than the music?”
What you’ve clearly missed is the point I was making overall. It isn’t a matter of CHOOSING what to remember. It is a matter of the question of whether the MUSIC wins out over the memory of the person’s life. If the music is truly valuable, if it truly has merit, it will last and survive. If not, it won’t. And I’m saying it’s my belief Jackson’s LARGELY will not. Some of it will, sure. But not enough to merit the nonsense that was built up around him from the early 80s on. Not even close.
“If this is your view of Sinatra, what makes him different from Jackson?”
A somewhat less sordid life, for one thing. And better songs.
“If you think both are hyped beyond their actual talents (I disagree with you on that),”
No kidding? Do you? I’m shocked!
“then why is it that Sinatra should be remembered more for his apparently mediocre music”
I don’t find all of Sinatra’s music to be mediocre. Some of it was, sure. But many of the hits he produced were excellent songs by excellent songwriters. Sinatra made some of those songs even more memorable and accessible.
BUT–Sinatra too was blown out of proportion as “the chairman of the board” and similar whatnot nonsense. He was good—sometimes very, very good. But his level of talent and ability and taste never really matched the huge hype built up around him.
“while Jackson is best eulogised as a crotch-grabbing, concert-cancelling, money-blowing, baby-dangling, kiddie-fiddling surgery junkie?”
Jackson, I remind you, LEFT US with that memory of him. He DID act in off the wall, bizarre ways on MANY occasions. Sinatra, by comparison, had a temper problem, was arrogant, womanized (but no more than many others) and pal-ed around with mobsters. Otherwise he lived a fairly dignified life. A mix of good and bad. Whether his music outlives his reputation, we’ll see. So far it looks like it will and I believe that in fact it will.
Jackson? We’ll see. My belief is that his music won’t. The hype built around him was a false balloon that will deflate in time. And the level of his TRUE talent will bring his artistic reputation down to the level where it belongs. Or so I can only hope.
This is Popular:
Well said.
Randall its me Blue cant be arsed to sign in to this WordPress thing.
Hope you are well, I have not bothered to comment for a while not had anything interesting in the lists.
I don’t think Farrah Fawcett’s death was in any way “overlooked” by the media. I was hearing/seeing stories about her passing hours before any news of Michael. Maybe Farrah’s family are blessed to have a chance to greive and mourn in peace.
Rest In Peace Michael Jackson – your music and memory will live on forever.
Blue/This is Popular:
No, me either… not much of interest lately… at least not in terms of commenting.
Where’s Farrah Fawcett’s damn list?!
Heh heh.
I would label this kind of list as “bad taste”, as mr Jackson is dead but he hasn’t even been buried.
However, this is the Internet.
JFrater: thanks for the refreshing take on MJ. Here in the states, you could not turn on a tv or radio last night without hearing all about him and his music and what a great guy he was. Today it is worse, with all the networks having specials about him. (do they have this stuff prepared ahead of time?)
He was a great entertainer for a long time, and he was a freak for a longer time. He admitted on tv that he let little boys sleep in his bed. No *****? Maybe. BUT ADULTS DO NOT SLEEP WITH KIDS NOT THEIR OWN!!! PERIOD!!!
Nor do they dangle them off balconies.
His death eclipsed that of Farrah Fawcett, who was a good actress and a very gracious person, who was not a freak. RIP Farrah.
OK, here we go…
“Trying to defend nonsense just makes you look inane and stupid, Baxter.”
Insults in the first line. Well done.
“Back off and stop and think about what you’re saying. Are you HONESTLY… *HONESTLY*… going to sit here and try to tell me that Michael Jackson EVER deserved, for a MOMENT, the plaudits and fame HEAPED on him?”
I don’t see why not. Popularity is largely democratic, and I think his talents spoke for themselves.
“How was he better than Jackie Wilson? Marvin Gaye? Sam Cooke? Otis Redding?”
He was a better dancer than any of them. What of it? Picasso was a better painter than Stephen Hawking.
“Answer: he wasn’t. Pure and simple.”
Because talent and enjoyment are objective, not subjective. Quite.
“He was, compared to them, middling.”
Compared how? Compared as a voice? Yes. Compared for presentation? Yes, most of the time. Compared as a showman and a dancer? No.
“The HELL you don’t. Or you wouldn’t be sitting here trying to argue that Michael Jackson actually somehow deserved or deserves the fawning adoration given him by a cynical media and a deluded public. You’ve bought into it as much as anyone else.”
The fact that I can acknowledge a talented individual does not mean I’ve been brainwashed. And where exactly has this ‘fawning adoration’ been seen in the last 15 years? Absolutely nowhere.
“Oh, so the reaction of a bunch of kids in a club who are otherwise bereft of good pop (there’s less and less of it produced each succeeding year) to one song proves he was the greatest talent in 30 years? You’re reaching. WAY reaching.”
I didn’t say he was the greatest talent in 30 years. When you start to make stuff up, then that’s when you start reaching, sir.
“No ***** people still listen to him, Baxter. I never said people didn’t LISTEN TO HIM, period. I asked how many people HONESTLY can say they still listen to him. Some, sure. But my money is on that number declining sharply over the coming years. Because there quite simply isn’t that much there to care about.”
Nope. Aside from the albums which more people have historically bought more of than those of any other artist apart from Elvis and the Beatles. And we all know that artists tend to be better appreciated in their lifetime than when they die… right?
“Oh, so that’s the measure of his talent now? His choreography?”
Yeah, that’s right Randall. I’ll bet with the right choreography you would really light up the stage. The ability to dance well is not a talent. Baryshnikov? Some ***** in tights.
“So… what? Michael Jackson was a great dancer, and that adds value to his music?”
The music speaks for itself. Millions of people around the world enjoy it, and yes, still listen to it.
“Jackie Wilson could do some awesome ***** on stage too, Baxter. But his music is remembered more than that. YOU, on the other hand, just made my argument for me. Jackson was a product of the Music Video generation.”
So what? You’re a product of the baby boomer generation, right? Should I hold that against you?
“His reputation rests largely on that—the gyrations and moves he produced as visual accompaniment to songs that were, IN FACT, otherwise of low to middling grade—or downright worthless.”
By what scale are you measuring worthlessness? Sales – approaching a billion units sold. Monetary value? We know the guy had money because he blew almost all of it. Enjoyability? Subjective in itself, I refer you back to the sales.
To be continued…
rest in peace brother
dont you just love free speech, lets all just move to china.
Yeah, I’ve been reading listverse for quite some time, but never got around to commenting or posting. However I have to say that this is in pretty poor taste.
I’m amazed with the media’s covering of MJ. I know I shouldn’t be, but knowing that Farrah Fawcet died and hearing virtually nothing, in comparison to MJ, is just strange. They’re trying to portray him as a great guy too, what about Ed McMahon, didn’t he do more to help out than MJ??? I don;t know about everyone else, but I just find it weird that a man of MJ’s reputation (minus his musical success, and including more of the above mentioned in the List) is getting this much attention. BTW, nice list JFrater.
I’m just glad that Prince is still going strong. Honestly, MJ was good in the 80′s, but that’s about it. He had “Off The Wall” and “Thriller”, beyond that it was just a freakshow. Prince’s musical ability literally *****s on any of the so called music made by Jackson after Thriller and by any music that’s made today! You may be asking yourself “who the hell mentioned Prince?” yeah well I went there!!
I think Michael Jackson didn’t realize that his social activities with kids were unappropriate and strange to the average person.
“NO, I’m not just “complaining” about this—-I’m stating it as FACT. I was there. I was born in 1965…”
You were there. You didn’t like it. Ergo – Jacko bad.
“Again, no *****, Baxter. That the media is capricious and will turn on its own creations ought to be no surprise. The idea is to sell product. Jackson was a product whether he was sold as “good” or “bad.””
But that isn’t a “fawning media”. Calling him a paedophile for 15 years is not “adoration”. I don’t dispute that he was sold. So what? So was Elvis. So were the Beatles.
“And by the way… do I take it from your tone that you excuse his alleged paedophilia? That you dismiss the charges?”
Not at all. I think he was a pervert. Doesn’t detract from his talent.
“You are claiming that you actually base the health of Western culture on how they report on and look back on the life of a pop star?”
I base it on a lot of stuff. Believe me, there’s plenty to make me think we’re headed up ***** creek right now. If one of those ways is to examine how they react to the death of one of the biggest-selling artists of all time, then so be it. Is cultural history of no interest to you?
“NO, Baxter—THAT is more of a sign of the danger that Western culture might be in—that you can actually make that claim. Unbelievable.”
Believe it, buddy-boy.
“Record sales have only so much to do with actual TALENT, Baxter. I can’t believe I have to keep returning to this point. This obvious truth seems to escape people time and time again. I could cite you dozens of crap “talents” who have sold millions of records over the decades. This proves what to you? That those people must be artistic geniuses? On what would you base this?”
You make a good point – ***** talent does sell. The difference is that everyone seems to be willing that he had talent whether they enjoy the music or not – except you.
“A) I never denied Jackson had SOME talent. Rather, I questioned that he ever had the HUGE, galactic-sized talent people have made him out to have.”
I think he had ‘it’.
“B) on what would you base the claim that he HAD some great, huge talent earlier on? On what specifically? What great artistic contribution did he make that placed him in such lofty heights?”
Beats me. But whatever it is, it guaranteed his popularity alongside the pantheon of other greats whom he will go down in history aside – Elvis, the Beatles, et al.
“Why not? Jack Nicholson too, to my thinking, is an overrated, hyped up “talent” who also deserves to have his memorial balloon pricked a bit.”
Oh wow! Didn’t see that one coming…
“Yes I would, Baxter—because unlike you, I recognize that there is a polarity of difference between an artist’s or actor’s true contributions and the CELEBRITY that has been built up and inflated around him.”
Let me tell you something – I had never even heard of Jack Nicholson when I first saw the Shining. I thought he was a golfer. Still, his performance blew me away. So tell me sir, how did his celebrity manage to seep into my conciousness and work its black magic?
Or is it possible that you are so full of yourself that you cannot tell the difference between an artist with no talent and an artist you don’t like?
@Randall (134):
“However, it also is a point that many singers are remembered simply for their ability to make a song memorable and accessible.”
MJ may not have been a great musician but he was a magnificent entertainer. His songs (though no great musical masterpieces) were catchy, his choreaography was energetic and innovative. I think very few people alive in the 80s will ever forget songs (and videos) like THRILLER or BEAT IT. No, I may not listen to them every day but if I hear one by chance I will sing it. Same goes for Elvis.
I do agree with you on most of your post. If he is remembered more for his eccentricities than his music, it will be his own fault. He bought into his own public image as an “untouchable deity” and apparently thought he could get away with anything.
In any case, jfrater, I liked the list.
@ 75 Ananas
“Jackson was found not guilty
found not guilty
not guilty”
So was OJ.
So was OJ.
So. Was. OJ.
Have you been up my Wishing Tree?
It’s where I come to think and dream.
And now I’d like to show you my Wishing Tree.
Where we can laugh and giggle and scream. Hee hee!
Imagination ist the key!
Won’t you imagine along with me?
We can be spacemen, or pirates on the sea.
Yes we can do everything,
And I mean, everything!
Up in my Wishing Tree! Hee hee! Ooooooooh!
All i got to say is KARMA. He got what he had coming he needs to be remembered for the *****ual monster he is. To all the boys that have been molested by micheal, you can now sleep safe
It’s really scary how many people are whining about this list. What would you rather it have been? A list of his top 10 albums? You could go on wikipedia or any other of the millions of websites that would show that. That would just be completely boring and overdone.If you want some sort of memoriam turn on any news channel for the next month and you will see one. I say just stop crying over the list and pay your respects to the man for everything he has done, INCLUDING all his faults.
How about a “10 reasons to kiss JFraters ass” list??
can someone do the top music icons ever? PLEASE love to see it… doesn’t have to be top ten like twenty or 30 itd be the bessssssst
152 ames801
June 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
so you’re saying that you dont believe in the justice system? well hats off to you
stoned wallabies make crop circles apparently.
or should that be cropped wallabies make stone circles?
Note: that last line should read: “Or is it possible that you are so full of yourself that you cannot tell the difference between an artist with middling talent and an artist you don’t like?”
There we go.
To the person who said that they still listen to Instant Karma – so do I.
“This is an excellent point. However, it also is a point that many singers are remembered simply for their ability to make a song memorable and accessible. THAT is what Elvis did, and the real reason why he’s remembered.”
I think the same can be said of Michael Jackson.
“Me, I’m frankly not a fan, not a big one anyway. I like some of his stuff very much, of course—but I rank the Beatles far higher, and rank people like Sam Cooke and Otis Redding higher as well. But many singers didn’t write their own material. Their talent was therefore in their voice and presentation. Big whoop. You’ve made no point there.”
I’ve made “an excellent point”, which turns out to be no point at all. Hmm.
So – the talents of many singers were in their voice and their presentation, but Jackson’s talents in these areas mean little or nothing? His reputation is founded on smoke and mirrors?
“Because he DID have a truly great talent, yes. Jackson had talent—but NOT *as* great. He simply did not. And if you’re going to argue that he did, I’d demand that you stand up and prove it.”
OK. Here is my proof that Jackson was a more talented dancer than Elvis Presley:
Jackson:
Presley:
Both great performances, but which is the more talented dancer? Or are his talents as a showman to be overlooked?
“What you’ve clearly missed is the point I was making overall. It isn’t a matter of CHOOSING what to remember. It is a matter of the question of whether the MUSIC wins out over the memory of the person’s life. If the music is truly valuable, if it truly has merit, it will last and survive. If not, it won’t.”
Luckily, it does and it will. Sales of his albums have apparently ‘skyrocketed’ today. He ain’t suffering so far. Time and history are on his side.
“A somewhat less sordid life, for one thing. And better songs.”
You acknowledge Sinatra’s talent because he had a somewhat less sordid life?
“No kidding?”
Nope.
“Do you?”
I do.
“I’m shocked!”
Sorry about that.
“I don’t find all of Sinatra’s music to be mediocre. Some of it was, sure. But many of the hits he produced were excellent songs by excellent songwriters. Sinatra made some of those songs even more memorable and accessible.”
I don’t find all of Jackson’s music to be mediocre. Some of it was, sure. But many of the hits he produced were excellent songs by excellent songwriters. Sinatra made some of those songs even more memorable and accessible.
“BUT–Sinatra too was blown out of proportion as “the chairman of the board” and similar whatnot nonsense. He was good—sometimes very, very good. But his level of talent and ability and taste never really matched the huge hype built up around him.”
I think it did. I love Sinatra. I’ve been listening to his music since I was 8. There has been no singer of popular music who has ever come close to Sinatra’s control, timbre and style. Or his talent.
“Jackson, I remind you, LEFT US with that memory of him. He DID act in off the wall, bizarre ways on MANY occasions.”
Not to mention in ways which were Bad, Dangerous and Earth Song!
“Sinatra, by comparison, had a temper problem, was arrogant, womanized (but no more than many others) and pal-ed around with mobsters. Otherwise he lived a fairly dignified life. A mix of good and bad. Whether his music outlives his reputation, we’ll see. So far it looks like it will and I believe that in fact it will.”
Yeah, I believe that too since he died, like, eleven years ago.
“Jackson? We’ll see. My belief is that his music won’t.”
You think that Jackson’s being alive is what has kept the Jackson 5′s legacy up? You think his records from 30 and 40 years ago will suddenly become passe? Oh please.
“The hype built around him was a false balloon that will deflate in time.”
Like the one built up around Elvis and the Beatles?
“And the level of his TRUE talent will bring his artistic reputation down to the level where it belongs. Or so I can only hope.”
Hope away, man, hope away. He has reality on his side. And if that fails, there’s always sentimentality and the gullibility of the common people to fall back on, right?
Baxter out.
@GTT (151): He bought into his own public image as an “untouchable deity” and apparently thought he could get away with anything.
I would like to expand on that.
Many people today think he was acting like a child with a child’s mentality when all of his escapades came to light. Even he jumped into it saying he saw nothing wrong with what he had done. I think it was just convenient for him. An escape route.
@ames801 (152): Very clever!
Bollocks. Just realised that I wrote “Sinatra” at one point where I should have written “Jackson”. Apologies for the failure to proof-read.
@Ananas (158):
I didn’t say that at all. They were charged. They hired representation that turned the justice system into a media circus (if it doesn’t fit you must acquit, jumping on an SUV before entering the court room, showing up in court in pajamas). They were tried. And they were found not guilty. I believe in the justice system most of the time…just not in these 2 cases.
And, thank you! Hats off to you as well. Have a great weekend
“I wasnt going to comment further on this but Baxter’s blind adoration of MJ is incredibly narrow-minded”
I’m not that big a fan. I’m just acknowledging the man had talent.
“and his view of sampling is also something that needs addressing.”
My view of sampling? Did I mention sampling?
It always amuses me how people were outraged when O.J. and Michael were found not guilty, but the same outrage wasn’t shown when a black man is hot 12 times in the back. I am not condoning the crimes, if they were in fact committed by the two, but if you have conclusive evidence that proves it, the number is 911.
Why is there always such an intelletual rush on this site to rate music and musicians as if they were grades of laminate flooring? If I listen to Otis Redding, it’s because I need to hear some soul, not because he ranks highly enough on somebody else’s Music Legacy and Legitimacy Scale. I listen to The Beatles because they make me feel good. And I listen to Michael Jackson because he has a groove. His music is *gasp* fun. He doesn’t need to hit some arbitrary musical/historical measurement for me to like what I’m hearing. Where’s the fun in that?
I don’t ignore Bobby Purify because he doesn’t rate as highly as Clarence Carter. And I don’t dismiss Michael Jackson because he might not have the longevity of Frank Sinatra. I like all of them, depending on my mood.
Applying some sort of measure of central tendency to the quality/value of music is pathetic. If you dig somebody’s stuff, then listen to it. If you don’t, then God bless you.
It’s music, man. Not insulation ratings.
On another note, while I enjoy this site and the many top ten lists, this one is in very poor taste. I mean, no one announced the death of Elvis as ” here is a racist junkie that stole the style of Chuck Berry, oh, and he was also a pretty good singer. GTFOH
“Not available in Timor”
Thanks for that Randall
One of the most bizarre things I have heard about MJ (and please forgive me if this is just a rumor or not true) is that he paid money to some guy for a voodoo curse to kill Steven Spielberg.
@blogball (167): do you know where can I register?
@deadlycynnamon (128): That’s a cracking idea- a list on who the world has lost and a summary of their greatest achievements. I’d read it anyway!
The sad thing about Michael Jackson is that he had such talent and promise when he was young. I wish I had been old enough in his heyday to appreciate his music (I was only 4 or 5 when “Thriller” came out) when he truly ruled the pop world. The freak show he has been for the last 15 years has been truly sad considering the man he once was. I wish to remember him for the truly great star he was in his youth, before the last crazy decade and a half. The great music he made should really be his legacy.
@warrrreagl (166):
Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument. Yes indeed, art is art and if you want to buy it or look at it or listen to it or would rather toss it in the trashcan, that’s everybody’s own individual lookout and that’s that. But what you’re really saying is that there’s no use or value to criticism and consideration of quality in art, (and music, even pop music, is a form of art) and that no one should talk about it. This is rubbish.
I can listen to Michael Jackson and Otis Redding and hear the difference in quality, intelligence, taste and innate creative talent. I can read Steinbeck and Joyce and can discern the same differences. Or I can look at a Caravaggio and a Thomas Kincaid and SEE the same.
Skill is not talent, nor is craftsmanship. It’s true that not all talent is equivalent, but neither is it equal.
“Ranking” is not really what this is about. It’s about value of the individual artist—regardless of comparisons to OTHER artists. In MY opinion–and let’s face it, I’m far from alone in this—Michael Jackson’s talent was monstrously overhyped and exaggerated by a media and a public who wanted to build a ready-made pop hero. He was talented in some ways yes, but most of his music amounts to nothing more than fantastically sophisticated pop drivel. And in fact he was ALWAYS like that.
Stating this is not wrong nor is it unreasonable. It’s what criticism and discernment is all about.
@warrrreagl (165): Thank you Warrr…I think you have hit it on the head. I thought that music is what soothed the savage beast…and that you never discuss religion and politics at the table.
@Lifeschool (113): Wow, so you know about the underground habitat in the antartctic too. OOoooh.
Baxter:
“I don’t see why not. Popularity is largely democratic,”
Artistry is not.
“and I think his talents spoke for themselves.”
and yet the only talent of his you’ve managed to really get behind thus far is his choreography skills. He was a singer, songwriter and musician. Yet so far you and others here have only admitted to his skills as an “entertainer.” In short, he put on a good show. Yes he did. But this in fact makes my point for me. He was more “show” than substance.
““How was he better than Jackie Wilson? Marvin Gaye? Sam Cooke? Otis Redding?”
He was a better dancer than any of them.”
An incredibly ridiculous answer. We’re talking about his MUSIC here… not how much he could shake it onstage or in a video.
“What of it? Picasso was a better painter than Stephen Hawking.”
And what kind of a retarded point is that supposed to be? Redding, Gaye, Wilson, etc. were all MUSICAL ARTISTS… as was Jackson. That’s not comparing “apples to oranges” but in fact it is the clearest example of apples to apples.
“Because talent and enjoyment are objective, not subjective. Quite.”
Enjoyment is subjective. Talent is much less so.
“Compared how? Compared as a voice? Yes. Compared for presentation? Yes, most of the time. Compared as a showman and a dancer? No.”
So you’re resting the bulk of his reputation on his showmanship and dancing skills. And you can’t see how this diminishes him, then, as an artist. In fact it does, and I agree with it—he is diminished and ought to be so. He was a great dancer and showman. He was NOT deserving of the accolades he received for his music.
“The fact that I can acknowledge a talented individual does not mean I’ve been brainwashed.”
In fact it does, if the only thing you can really cite about him as clearly positive, clearly superlative, is his dancing skill and showmanship. He was obviously supposed to be much more than that, but even you can only recognize that. And yet you continue with this pointless debate as though there’s more. There isn’t–or at any rate there’s very little. Even you admit it, but refuse to see it.
“And where exactly has this ‘fawning adoration’ been seen in the last 15 years? Absolutely nowhere.”
Bull*****. Jackson has never ceased to be a media product in one form or another. The focus on him, yes, has risen and fallen—but that’s something else entirely.
“I didn’t say he was the greatest talent in 30 years. When you start to make stuff up, then that’s when you start reaching, sir.”
I never said that YOU said that. YOU are, however, defending the lumpen consensus amongst the deluded and uninformed, and the groveling-at-the-feet media, that Jackson was someone truly deserving of the accolades that have been heaped on him the last 30 years.
And if you’re NOT defending that—then what the hell are we arguing about?
“Nope. Aside from the albums which more people have historically bought more of than those of any other artist apart from Elvis and the Beatles.”
AND AGAIN—FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME—POPULARITY DOES *NOT* EQUAL ARTISTIC VALUE!!!!
Yes, sometimes a very, very popular artist also happens to be very, very good. But OFTENTIMES—more often than not—lousy artists are also extremely popular. And great artists gain very little popularity. That you continue to fail to admit this or recognize it shows that you’re just being obstinately evasive—since this point would clearly negate some of your standing.
The fact that Michael Jackson has sold millions of records means only so much—in some cases very little—to his actual value as an artist. MANY artists have done very well in terms of sales only to be crap, and/or to be totally forgotten in time. We live in an age of hype and excess, and so Jackson was hyped to the levels he was. Was he truly better than, say… a Barry Manilow? Perhaps. He sold a few more records. But is that really what you’d base his value on? No.
““Oh, so that’s the measure of his talent now? His choreography?”
Yeah, that’s right Randall. I’ll bet with the right choreography you would really light up the stage. The ability to dance well is not a talent. Baryshnikov? Some ***** in tights.”
This is RIDICULOUS. See my point earlier.
“The music speaks for itself. Millions of people around the world enjoy it, and yes, still listen to it.”
And again, I will say that in time this will diminish. The value simply is not there. Millions of people have BOUGHT his records. Millions of people buy lots of things. That does not mean they will continue to do so or that his value is assured.
“So what? You’re a product of the baby boomer generation, right? Should I hold that against you?”
In fact I’m not. I told you I was born in 1965. That is not “baby boomer.”
“By what scale are you measuring worthlessness? Sales – approaching a billion units sold. Monetary value? We know the guy had money because he blew almost all of it.”
It’s telling that these are the first things you go to—not quality of artistry–but sales and money. And that’s ALL you mention.
No, Baxter, I DON’T measure artistic value by those things. Apparently you DO. In that, you are ridiculously WRONG.
Baxter:
“You were there. You didn’t like it. Ergo – Jacko bad.”
No, Baxter. I was there to see the hype and the overexaggeration of what he had to offer. That is what I meant, and I made this clear.
But if you want to get down to it, in fact, it’s clear also that I am far, FAR more discerning than YOU, who can repeatedly ONLY bring up Jackson’s abilities to dance, sell records, and make money. And nothing else. And yet you persist in this pointless argument that he was somehow due this great tidal wave of adoration that was heaped on him. And you offer no support for it—you just argue with me about it.
““Again, no *****, Baxter. That the media is capricious and will turn on its own creations ought to be no surprise. The idea is to sell product. Jackson was a product whether he was sold as “good” or “bad.””
But that isn’t a “fawning media”.”
You’re now simply playing at games. The media as a whole has made PRODUCT out of Jackson from day one. Some of it has at times fawned on him, some of it has at times attacked him when there was something to attack. But a fawning, celebrity-worshiping media is what made him into this bloated celebrity in the first place.
“Calling him a paedophile for 15 years is not “adoration”. I don’t dispute that he was sold. So what? So was Elvis. So were the Beatles.”
And again, all you can do is offer up these meaningless associations—well it was done to Elvis and the Beatles–so that means nothing! Rubbish. Yes, Elvis and the Beatles were sold—but they were much MORE than that, or at least the Beatles certainly were. Jackson was NOT.
““And by the way… do I take it from your tone that you excuse his alleged paedophilia? That you dismiss the charges?”
Not at all. I think he was a pervert. Doesn’t detract from his talent.”
But it MAY, in time, color his reputation and memory, if his music does not stand the test of time and survive—which is what I was saying. People here were whining about the impropriety of posting a list like this—when the entire point is, here is a guy who did ridiculous, weird, and perhaps even criminal things–to EXCESS–and yet, what? We’re now supposed to hallow his memory without mentioning any of that? And why? Because we must buy the hype that insists he was much more of an artist than he actually was? No. That’s where we should refuse.
““You are claiming that you actually base the health of Western culture on how they report on and look back on the life of a pop star?”
I base it on a lot of stuff.”
Funny, that’s all you brought up or mentioned.
“Is cultural history of no interest to you?”
Of course. But to me a reaction of this type to Jackson is by no means a “sign of the decline of civilization.” To my way of thinking, it shows that some people aren’t willing to just BUY whatever celebrity is rammed down their throats. That’s a GOOD sign, perhaps.
“You make a good point – ***** talent does sell. The difference is that everyone seems to be willing that he had talent whether they enjoy the music or not – except you.”
I remind you that I NEVER said that Jackson had NO talent and in fact have acknowledged that he DID have some. What *I* have been saying is that he did NOT have the talent equal to the absurd amounts of accolade and hype which have attended him for years.
““A) I never denied Jackson had SOME talent. Rather, I questioned that he ever had the HUGE, galactic-sized talent people have made him out to have.”
I think he had ‘it’.”
Well, good for you. You have yet to define what that “it” is, or what made him thus so great. The only thing you’ve cited is his ability to dance, put on a show, and make money.
““B) on what would you base the claim that he HAD some great, huge talent earlier on? On what specifically? What great artistic contribution did he make that placed him in such lofty heights?”
Beats me.”
And there it is right there.
A) You just admitted that you don’t know and can’t say what it is.
B) You repeatedly only refer to his money-making, record-selling… and oh yes, his dancing.
C) You fail to see how this simply makes you yet another deluded softhead who bought into the hype.
You want to like his music? Fine for you. More power to you. I liked some of it too, though not much. But it stops right there. Beyond that, you need to say WHY he was deserving of this monumental hype and honor. What, artistically, did he do to truly earn it?
You are, in fact, one of the so-called “brainwashed” that you claimed, earlier, you were not one of.
“But whatever it is, it guaranteed his popularity alongside the pantheon of other greats whom he will go down in history aside – Elvis, the Beatles, et al.”
BULL*****. All it’s done is assured that he has been a symbol of hype and media blitzing. We shall see, in time, if his music truly survives and maintains the hold on the pop-culture mind the way the music of the Beatles and Elvis has. I maintain that it won’t. JACKSON will be remembered—as a media character, a pop star, a figure. But it is all hollow. His actual MUSIC, his actual talent—is not up to holding the bubble at the heights it rose to.
““Yes I would, Baxter—because unlike you, I recognize that there is a polarity of difference between an artist’s or actor’s true contributions and the CELEBRITY that has been built up and inflated around him.”
Let me tell you something – I had never even heard of Jack Nicholson when I first saw the Shining. I thought he was a golfer. Still, his performance blew me away. So tell me sir, how did his celebrity manage to seep into my conciousness and work its black magic?”
Well, offhand I’d say you’re not terribly smart and are not terribly discerning. How’s that? Because while I thought The Shining was a very good movie and Nicholson did a decent job, he did not “blow me away.” Rather, he shamefully overacted and hammed it up—as he has often done since early in his career.
“Or is it possible that you are so full of yourself that you cannot tell the difference between an artist with no talent and an artist you don’t like?”
In fact, Baxter, I can. Readily. What’s clear is, you can’t tell the difference between value—and hype.
@Enoooo (155): No, I don’t think a Top 10 of his albums would work, either. I still suggest a memorial list of those who died to give them all a fair share (not “Top 10 Deaths of 2009″ that’s just tacky). Any takers to create a memorial list? I might, but I can’t guarantee it…
R.I.P. micky
and as far as RANDALL AND BAXTER god damn can you all stick to small comments reading all that makes me tired.
Good list J