midnightmover said:

Really .....LOL

midnightmover said:

that's not quite true. in the wake of his trial, there was a book by a u.s. social critic about mj, and either harvard, yale or princeton - i forget which - had a seminar about him and his journey from fame to infamy. admittedly, it was limited.

but to your larger point about why there hasn't been a plethora of serious scholarship surrounding him, can you say that about any black artist? you mention the beatles and dylan. i happen to think that stevie wonder is a great a songwriter; are there any serious works about him? when i go into the bookstore, i see dozens of books on white artists that never had stevie's reach in terms of hit records or influence. but on stevie? not that i can recall. prince? nope, not really. what about the rise of motown against the backdrop of post-WWII america and the emergence of the black middle class and the civil rights movement? maybe a few, obscure titles.

but really there's nothing, of which i'm aware, on par with peter guralnick's (sp?) work on elvis which frames the discussion of black artists, whomever they are, against the larger issues of race, class, and culture in our society. the bottom line, hard line, is that black people (save mlk perhaps), are generally, not seen as movers and actors in history. they are only as important as the larger (white) culture sees them as important. that's why even though mj opened up mtv as the force it became, it is madonna who at the end of the day is the face of mtv. white culture controls the discourse, not black culture.

i've been lurking a while here, so i know you have absolutely no use for mj - or janet or their family and i agree with a poster up above that we really don't need to read your treatise on him as we already know your verdict based on your previous posts about him - but i think the reasons i cited above are why there is so little scholarship about black artists, including mj.
[Edited 10/22/08 15:44pm]

kibbles said:

It's not true that I have no use for MJ. If you've been lurking for a while then you should know I regard him as probably the greatest song and dance man in pop history. He's also recorded some phenomenal music. I take a balanced view. I acknowledge his talent, but I don't blind myself to obvious truths just because I have a boner for the man.

As for the studies of their work, Prince has had some very serious intelligent books written about him and his work. See Dave Hill's A Pop Life for instance. For Motown you should check out Nelson George's excellent Where Did Our Love Go?, one of the best music books you'll ever read. The social critic's book you mention was discussing MJ's celebrity, not his work. No serious writer has published a study of MJ's work.

Race may indeed be a factor in who gets attention and who doesn't, but more than any other black artist Michael transcended race. You don't become the biggest selling artist of all time if people see you as just a "black artist".

I'm old enough to remember MJ's heyday. Michael was so safe and non threatening, that he was pretty much accepted as an honorary white man. I knew white people who listened to no black music except MJ. So considering his HUGE, unprecedented popularity I don't think race would have been a bar to his being studied. It certainly didn't stop people analysing Prince's stuff.

midnightmover said:

actually, i do have where did our love go. i don't know that i would be as effusive in my praise of it as you have been, but yes, it is a good read.

but would you really consider it, or 'pop life' as being on par with guralnick?i guess i don't feel that mj (or any black artist) ultimately transcends race. he was popular for a moment, but just as quickly as he was 'transcendent' he very soon was just another "n*****" on his way to jail. whatever his accomplishments or musical abilities or renown, he has been and will continue to be marginalized in a way that the beatles, dylan, elvis, or madonna never will be. as elvis costello predicted long ago, when all is said and done, mj will be rendered a footnote in musical history, for much of the reasons i cited above.

i will take you at your word about your high regard for his talent. but again, based on reading this board and your posts, i have never, ever gotten that impression.

kibbles said:

Bullshit. Whether you think he was guilty or not, no one can deny MJ was behaving in an EXTREMELY worrying way, by sharing his bed with a succession of little boys. Black or white, you are gonna be condemned for that. By turning that into a racial issue you are engaging in the same nonsense that made black people think OJ was innocent in the '90s. OJ was GUILTY AS HELL, but most black people only saw colour and so blinded themselves to the truth. The one distorting factor at work in both those cases was not race, but WEALTH, since both of them were found innocent when ordinary citizens in those circumstances would have gone straight to jail.


This goes to show that you know nothing about me. I have made my respect for his talent known countless times. I'm a big fan of the old MJ. I just don't go along with the delusions that his fans live by. Just 3 months ago I was arguing with one who thought MJ's album would be coming out in September. Obviously he was wrong and I was right. This is because the hardcore fans have far less understanding of their idol than I do. It's always the case that fanatics have the least perspective.
[Edited 10/23/08 10:05am]

midnightmover said:

i'm not going to rehash the mj trial as that's been done countless times on this board. however, mj was guilty *as accused* from day one in 1993. there was never a moment of benefit of doubt. that's what i mean when is say he was just another 'n***** on his way to jail'. an accusation, especially of a sexual nature, has always been enough to derail the life of the most benign black man. moreover, mj was well on his way to being marginalized well before 1993, and the accusation just sealed his fate. so i stand by my statement.

as i do my statement about your opinion of him. just based on my lurking at this board, i can set my watch by how long it takes you from seeing a new topic about mj or a thread in which his name is mentioned before you show up to make a derogatory remark about him (or janet, or the family). i never ever would have guessed you had any regard for him, thriller-era or otherwise. i don't quite understand why arguing about his alleged cd release qualifies as proof that you respect his talent. one doesn't have anything to do with the other, does it? but as i said, i will take you at your word.

kibbles said:

Again. Bullshit. MJ has just had one of the biggest selling albums of the year, Thriller 25. The Number Ones album sold 6 or 7 million copies worldwide, despite being released the day of his arrest. I still hear his music played all the time. That tells me that the trial has had surprisingly little impact on his popularity. And how was he being marginalised before 1993? Dangerous sold over 20 million copies and his profile was HUGE. Most artists can only dream of being "marginalised" like that.

Now, there are a lot of people who think he's a kiddie fiddler, but that has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! It has to do with the fact that he's shared his bed with countless little boys, drank alcohol with them, talked about sex with them, and has never had a girlfriend. If you think for one second that a white man with the same profile would not be widely suspected, then you are being neither objective nor serious.



I've already told you that I'm a big fan of much of Michael's work. Most people here know that. Your ignorance of that fact says more about your assumptions than anything else. Most of my arguments about MJ are more to do with fan foolishness than anything else. I used the argument about the CD release as an illustration of that. In that instance, the loon had read a load of quotes and interpreted them completely wrong. In doing so he demonstrated a total lack of understanding about his idol's personality (as well as a lack of basic comprehension). I knew about Mike's indeciveness, his lack of hunger, and saw clear evidence of that in all the quotes. The loon was blind to all that. That's why he got it so wrong. Like I said, if you want real insight into someone like MJ, you have to steer well clear of the hardcore fans.
[Edited 10/23/08 13:48pm]

midnightmover said:

this discussion started out with your assertion that there's not really been a serious study or critique about mj. well, when i say 'marginalized' i mean just that: in spite of the success you (shockingly!) recount, he's never really been seen a serious contender worthy of the social critique that you see directed at other well known 'icons'. so, yeah, he's marginalized for reasons we previously discussed, his popularity among his fans notwithstanding.

both roman polanski and woody allen went on with their lives and careers after the scandals in their respective lives for similar accusations of sexual misconduct and impropriety with young people. the media rarely bring these indescretions up (not that they should as these men went on with their lives as they had every right to). in fact, a rather forgiving documentary about roman polanski was released last year. not so with mj. for ten long years, well before the second set of allegations and trial, you could not open a mag or newspaper or watch tv without someone bringing up the accusations against or speculating negatively about mj, at least here in america.

klaus von bulow, robert blake, phil spector - all involved in high-profile cases where the evidence appeared to show they would be, or should have been, convicted. but when they were acquitted, white america accepted the jury verdicts. there may have been some dismay or shock, but generally no hand wringing anger.

but like oj, mj's acquittal will hang like a noose from his neck in a way it hasn't around these other (white) men. you say bullshit that it has nothing to do with race, i say whatever, dude.

look, i can only comment about what *i've* seen of your posts on this board, i can't speak to what you may have posted when i wasn't here. you can be insulting and dismissive all you want, it doesn't phase me in the least; in fact, given what i *have seen* of your posts, that's pretty par for the course as well. your attempt to demean me means nothing and doesn't change my opinion of your opinion of mj one iota.

further, i don't think mj's failure to release a cd has anything to do with indecisive or lack of hunger. it's because he knows what's awaiting him. he will have to face the constant drumbeat of questions and rehashing of his scandal in a way that polanski, et al never have had to do. there is going to be no 'forgiveness', no going on, no putting it behind him, none of that, for him any more than it was possible for oj. who would want to face that?

i could be wrong, but i don't think we'll be hearing from mj again.

kibbles said:

About the serious critique, I saw Prince getting plenty of it in the '80s. Last time I checked, he was black. Miles Davis and Jimi Hendrix have also had TONS of serious critiques from major heavyweights. To a lesser extent, so has James Brown (check out Cynthia Rose's Living in America among others). These people are all black.


Roman Polanski was driven out of America and never returned for fear of being arrested. Now, after decades have passed, people are starting to give him a break, but for decades he was a parriah. Woody Allen was also SLAUGHTERED in the press for the Sun-Yi thing (which by the way was nowhere near as serious as MJ's crimes since the girl was consenting and they are still together today). Both these men were allowed to continue working, but SO IS MJ! No one is stopping him working. The man just lost his hunger after struggling so much on the History Tour in 1997 (if you ever get a chance to hear some of his live vocals on that tour you will hear exactly what I mean).

I've never heard of von bulow or robert blake, but Phil Spector is still awaiting retrial. We don't know what's going to happen there. We do know what happened to R. Kelly though. He got off scott free and is still enjoying a successful career. OJ quite literally got away with murder (or are you one of those who thinks he was framed?). Here in the UK, Gary Glitter (a white superstar from the '70s) is the most hated man in the country after child porn was found on his computer. He is in fear of his life, and all his records have been deleted. By contrast, MJ has had two Top 10 albums this year alone and is still as mainstream as ever.

Finally, I have to ask you. Do you seriously think that a white man who shared his bed with a succession of little boys, drank alcohol with them, spoke about sex with them, never had a girlfriend and was accused directly of sex abuse by at least three different children would not be condemned loudly for it? I would like an honest answer to this question.

midnightmover said:

Gary Glitter was caught red handed. He had thousands of images of Child abuse.
More law enforcements raided Neverland Ranch than for any murderer or serial killer in American history and they found no evidence proving MJ was a kiddie fiddler.
Over a decade trying to prove he was a child molester and zip all was found.
Gary Glitter and MJ are not comparable.

It wasn't proven he drank alcohol with the them or spoke about sex with them.

midnightmover said:

but you make my point about the serious critique thing that i raised earlier: the reason why some people get covered and some don't is because white people control the discussion of what is considered culturally relevant. more white people at this point embrace jazz and they have always embraced rock guitar artists. it's not particularly shocking that davis, hendrix, or prince have more books about them, good, bad or indifferent, any more than it isn't shocking that madonna has more books written about her than mj. mj will always be marginalized apart from any record sales because he isn't relevant (and in my estimation never has been) to the people who frame the larger discussion about who and what is relevant.


i never said that allen and polanski weren't condemned. they were - initially. but spitting anger for years on end? no, i don't see it in either case. yes, there is the threat from l.a. da's office that polanski will be arrested if he comes back. they're the only ones singing that song. i live here; there is no widespread condemnation now, or even 20 years ago, against polanski. i am familiar with his body of work, familiar with the critics who write reviews of his work, and it has only been in recent years that i knew about the long ago allegations about him and that's only because the person involved came forward to talk about them. the allegaions weren't being thrown in my face constantly; no one was drippig with contempt and outrage as they reviewed his films; no one mentioned any rape victim. allen's scandal was limited to the year that it happened. if mj ever comes out with new music, you can believe that the scandal is *all* that will be discussed. the review of the music will take a backseat to all of it. the nail's in his coffin, he's not going on.

i believe oj simpson committed the murders of his wife and her friend. i do not believe mj molested anyone. but we're talking about two different things. when a person is acquitted, whether you believe the jury got it right, the person is supposed to goes on with his life without being perpetually lynched. mj and oj are in a boat that blake, et al don't ever have to worry about being in. if spector is acquitted this time, you still will not see the lynch mob-type reaction in the press and public that you saw when oj or mj were acquitted. again, i stand by my opinion. (and as has been discussed on this board, r.kelly was never in the same boat as mj because he was "only" accused of sexual relations with black girls, not white boys. if oj had murdered his black first wife, we wouldn't have been hearing about him for years end, either. so yes, robert going to go on with his life and miserable career without the perpetual lynching by the press and public at large because black girls and women are not as important in american society, cf. "missing white child/woman syndrome".)

we have a difference of opinion as to why mj will not perform again, but i don't know that your speculation is any more or less valid than mine. it could be a combination of everything we've discussed. but apart from our disagreement on other issues, i think we can agree that unlike some mj watchers, we won't be holding our breath for a new cd.

Kibbles, your posts were a very good read.

curioso said:

curioso said:

The point is, contrary to kibbles' claims, white people are also punished for wrongdoing. If Glitter was black, kibbles would be saying his treatment was racist. Oh, and it was one of Michael's own employees who said he drank alcohol with Michael and talked about sex with him when he was just 13 years old. He actually said it to defend Michael.
[Edited 10/24/08 4:59am]

Someone Has Had Stories To Tell

SoulAlive said:

haha, I remember this just too well. I have the 7" and 12" single somewhere in the collection I haven't listened to it in decades uhmmmm years though... (well, I don't wann give away my age here...)


this reminds me, anyone remember this Thriller ripoff? (not a genuine answer record, almost more like a remake...)

Yvonne Gage "Doin' It In A Haunted House" from 1984 or so...

http://www.mediafire.com/...n0kzmqzndf

.
[Edited 10/24/08 3:47am]

kibbles said:

James Brown has had some deep study done of his work. Bob Marley has had a long book published devoted purely to analysing his lyrics (Lyrical Genius). Both these guys make BLACK music. Prince may have played some rock, but his music is definitely black first and foremost. Why was Prince so much more respected than MJ in the '80s? I would argue it's because his work was more edgy and unique. Nelson George (a respected black writer who actually wrote a bio of MJ in 1983) said it best in the late '80s when he said "Michael is more like Cab Calloway, and Prince is more Duke Ellington". (Miles Davis actually echoed that sentiment in his autobiography when he said he loved MJ as a performer, but he thought Prince was more impressive as "an overall musical force"). I remember in the '80s seeing a cover story on MJ which had the question "Michael Jackson for grown ups?". I was a kid at the time and knew first hand just how much kiddie appeal he had. That kiddiness by itself explains much of his critical neglect. I agree that writers focus more on what they themselves are interested in, but I honestly think MJ is lumped in many academics' minds alongside Abba and Queen as populist fluff. I always saw him as more than that, but after Bad he was definitely relegated to the "guilty pleasures" list by snobs everywhere.

As for Allen and Polanski, both of them were stigmatised for years. MJ never served jail time like Polanski and didn't spend the rest of his life exiled like Polanski either. Neither of them are anywhere near as famous as MJ, so the condemnation may not seem as widespread to you, but it was. And Allen's case doesn't even compare to MJ's. He had a loving relationship with a 19 year old girl who he's been married to now for years. Surely you can see that's WAY DIFFERENT to jacking off a thirteen year old boy.

After the allegations in 1993 MJ's career continued to thrive. History sold very well, and the tour for the album was also a massive success. His winding down of his career happened long before the next scandal in 2003. Long before. His friends confirm he lost his hunger in the late '90s/ early '00s, after he became a father. The failure of Invincible was the nail in the coffin. When it came time to release a greatest hits he was so unmotivated, he had to get R. Kelly to provide the one new song. Again, this was before the trial.

Meanwhile, he remains a VERY POPULAR figure. On X-Factor (the UK equivalent of American Idol) they just had a whole evening devoted to MJ songs. They only ever do that with the safest, most mainstream figures. MJ's music is as popular now as it ever was. This is an inconvenient truth you seem to be deliberately ignoring. Thriller 25 has been a huge success despite no promotion whatsoever from MJ, and his music is everywhere, so your argument that he has been perpetually lynched just doesn't hold up. And the fact that you think a double murderer like OJ Simpson was treated unfairly is truly..... DISTURBING!
[Edited 10/24/08 5:47am]

midnightmover said:

You're so far up your own arse you're almost crawling out of your own mouth.

vainandy said:

I only have the Clubhouse 12", never heard Slingshot




oh yeah, and then there was this one:

midnightmover said:

Name me a book were were it's entirely devoted to analyzing James Brown's work.
I know there are books which discuss the rhythms and chords of his music but not the lyrics.
If these books do exists is because of his musical innovations. He has influenced a whole bunch of genres.

One reason that the work of Bob Marley (that's another Bob by the way) is discussed because the majority of his songs exhibit strong themes and universal messages.
While the music is very appealing it's the words that are most significant in songs such as "No Woman No Cry", Buffallo Soldier, Get Up Stand Up, Redemption Song etc.
It's the strong lyrics that stem from his own experiences which people are able to relate to and these authors like to focus on. The music is secondary.
Also, he was responsible for bringing Reggae music to wider attention and is it's main figure. He had no competition in a genre that was not globally popular so his work and achievements stand out more.

Michael Jackson music is more focused on the actual music than the lyrics.




His intent is to create musically memorable songs which have great vocals and are rhythmically and melodically great.
Most of his songs are not focused on profound and universal subject matters like justice, hope, poverty and love which these authors and critics are saliving over so he's not given as much respect.
When he does write or perform songs like these - We Are The World, Man In The Mirror and Heal The World he's accused of being overly sentimental and corny.
Also, MJ doesn't have a very large catalogue of work to study compared to some other notable artists. This and that lyrics to most of his songs are probably considered not cryptic enough is a reason why his work is not deemed 'worthy' to analyze.

What he is brilliant at doing doesn't appeal to these authors and academics.
He's an amazing vocalist (One of the best ever in popular music IMO), an innovative visual artist and one of the greatest dancers in popular music.
These people are more interested in arists who play instruments and whose music is folksy and rock oriented. Lyrics of this type of music is given most importance disregarding if the music is lucklustre.
The fact that MJ is an exceptional vocalist and dancer and can write such great songs is something rare and there's no white or black artist like him.
He has created some of most the memorable songs ever which have a very distinctive energy and groove to them. He's a unique talent whose affect on popular music fans aound the globe is unrivalled but they're not keen to acknowledge that.
It's much more interesting and pleasurable to focus on his eccentricities.

Also, the fact that he is the most successful solo artist ever and is black is a factor
Prince, James Brown, Jimi hendrix, Bob Marley are extremely talented musicians but they didn't achieve the incredible success and pop culture fame that MJ has.
They're not pop culture giants like Elvis Prestley, and the Beatles but MJ is.
So they use any flaw to diminish his genius - the fact he doesn't write all his songs, isn't known to play a instrument, the plastic surgeries and the child abuse allegations.
They're focus and greater respect on other black artists and white artists is just a method of disregarding the incredibile significance and talent of MJ.
I blame Mj for that also because he's given people much ammunition.

About the X Factor, it's not shocking. In shows in the UK they still play his music and his new compilation albums are advertised. It's in the US where he's stigmatized.

Lastly MJ doesn't need validation from academics. His genius and astonishing acheivements are evident to many. If they don't acknowledge it stuff em.
[Edited 10/24/08 11:32am]
[Edited 10/24/08 16:12pm]

Dancelot said:

Never heard that one before.

midnightmover said:

There's also Peter Guarlnick's (sp?) two books on Sam Cooke and Ben Edmonds' book on the making of Marvin's What's Going On album so there's been a lot of black music legends whose music has been covered. With Michael, discussion goes directly not just in his MUSIC, but his videos, performances and, let's face it, confusing personal life. Those factors are really why Michael remains fascinating. And yes, Michael's sales never really wavered. He was always selling because there continues to be a market for Michael that people, whether some want to admit it or not, gravitate to. Also, Sony keeps re-releasing material anyway so of course his stuff is gonna sell for a long time. That back catalog is no joke.

I remember this song.

SoulAlive said:

I remember that song! Doesn't she say at the end, "Your hot chocolate is getting cold!"?

SoulAlive said:

Just looked online, and apparently, Lydia Murdock did an entire album:

http://www.cduniverse.com...=790781038

Interesting, because it's showing a release date of March 3, 1994.
[Edited 10/25/08 17:56pm]

psychodelicide said:

She certainly did

Timmy84 said:

Wow, that's a book I need to get. And soon.

SoulAlive said:

Any idea of the artist's name who did this song? I'm curious to find it.

psychodelicide said:

"Thunder And Lightning" by Miss Thang (1986)

SoulAlive said:

Thanks.