dag said:

MJJstudent said:

i have had very vivid, sometimes disturbing dreams after michael's transition. and i usually write the dreams down in a blog piece. for me, as i student i just take my study extremely seriously. and i have been on the search for others who take the studies just as seriously, with the same amount of enthusiasm. if i am not at work or doing radio, this is my life. even when i am spending time with someone, there is always an aspect of my studies at play. people know this about me.

when it comes to michael i am not laid back at all. to me, this is an emergency, to find a serious community. i have posted about this numerous times on my facebook page actually, and i don't really get a response. so as my friend says, you are just gonna have to go it alone. at some points i am okay with that. but we humans by nature seek companionship. it gets lonely being a solo student.

And let me straigten this out. I do take Mike very serously, but you have to understand that you have joined a board where most of us have been here for a couple of years by now and we´ve discussed most of these things so many times that we are just tired of discussing them again. Or at least I am. There´s been so much drama over the years that it got tiring, so I just join only some of the discussion now.

i respect that very much, dag.

so again, if you can lead me to a person (or people) who is more than willing to have these sort of dialogs, i would sincerely appreciate it, from the bottom of my heart. thanks.

greatpink said:

MJJstudent said:

i'm not afraid, it just hurts. i don't post things just to post them. so if it feels like people don't take what i post seriously (or if it feel like people are ignoring what i say), it's like what is the point?

again, i just wish there was a forum for the purpose of having long, drawn out philosophical conversations... the old school type, before text messaging culture took over. as you can see, i write a lot. i wrote a friend of mine a 97-page letter once. this is what i love to do. it's not like i have all the time in the world either, but when i do, that's what i do, i write. this is why i stay up after work until the sun comes up. all i do is write.

Do you completely identify MJ a person with MJ an artist/public figure/guy in the videos?

If not, which criteria do you use to keep them separate?

Do you believe that every his public move was either political or social message and expressed exactly his position and views?

Did it also apply to his music videos?

Do you think they contained an element of… "doing what is considered to be cool at the time"? Flirting with public, taking into account its expectation?

Compromises?

Possibly, self-irony?

The women-subject doesn't appeal to me at all (sorry) - moreso, a dozen of users in this forum will tell you at once that MJ "had no issues with women at all, he chased them at the backseat, period", but I would like to know your opinion about HIStory era and his turn to totalitarian imagery.

That is, by the time the album came out and advertising company started, there was as good as no other way than… not to take it too seriously. We all bought it, of course - in fact, everybody I knew bought it: to express their support after the child molestation issue; but objectively - and visually - it was almost the worst stuff one could come to old continent with. For many - like a slap in the face. Hope, I don't have to explain why.

Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???

Would really like to know what you think of it; and, once again, about your criteria of taking an issue "absolutely, deadly seriously" and "not so very seriously".

hi greatpink... these are great questions!

if i understand the first question correctly, i don't separate the artist from the person at all. he puts a lot of himself and his 'truth' in his performances. he's always been consistent about his love for children and animals, as well as the desire for justice; and the need for fantasy, in both his own life and in his role as a performer. for me, to separate the artist from the performer would put him in 'idol' status, and i do not consider michael to be an idol. he is not above man. he is not to be worshipped.

i think largely, most of his moves were indeed political. as a black person in the u.s., he used his talents to strive for independence in a country which consistently/historically sets the rights of 'people of colour' back. as an artist, i don't think he was able to be open about this, until the release of 'dangerous'. politically, as an artist, i think he was under control/programmed by the industry for many years. as an INDIVIDUAL i think he saw the ramifications of remaining silent as a black man in this country, and decided to finally let his art speak on the issue.

in terms of the videos, i'd say 'man in the mirror' was overtly political. 'another part of me' i believe is another political song. i also think it's a direct reference to the universal laws: namely, the law of vibrational energy. i don't think he became overtly political (in the way i think most people view political thought) until the second half of 'black or white', when he morphed to and from a BLACK PANTHER. after that point, there was no turning back for him.

i think michael indeed deal with all of the qualities you named. he, like any artist of his stature, wanted to be 'hip with the times'. this is how 'dangerous' would come to be. teddy riley was the 'king of the new jacks' at the time, and michael wanted that element in his music. i think it served him well. he would also use hip hop in his music, as well as other producers who had some 'hip' quotient.

the man flirted with the public all the time... he learned from people like h.p. barnum and james brown. he was keen on managing his image. he created some hoaxes so people could keep talking about him. with that, there's some self-irony for sure, as what he started eventually backfired on him. did he make any compromises? yes. i think he made too many. he invited too many negative forces in his life, to meet whatever needs he felt were not being met.

with the totalitarian imagery... again, i think this was some grand scheme to grab media attention. it's not too different from what james brown or muhammad ali did, really. michael just took it to a different level. michael was interested in figures like stalin and hitler, historically. he was extremely interested in how hitler, in particular, marketed himself.

the other way to look at it is, michael never felt good about himself. he described to boteach that everything he did, it was so someone could say they loved him. was his HIStory marketing scheme a message for someone to say they love d him? i do not know. i think it's a mixture of marketing and low self-esteem. he needed to know he was still important in the public eye.

i agree with you in a way, it was sort of a slap in the face. again though. even though this may be difficult to do, i am trying to put myself in his shoes. he most likely figured that after the chandler issue, he'd get no support. so he went all out. he made his angriest album yet. and it actually ended up being his best, for all intents and purposes. it was really as if he did not care. so at the same time, i don't think it was a slap in the face, from a marketing perspective. or again, a self-esteem perspective.

on the surface it looks like his ego became inflated 20,000 times over. i mean, his people did the whole 'king of pop' thing, similar to james brown's 'godfather of soul', etc. but i think ultimately, michael's ego was so deflated it's not even funny. why did he choose the persona of a dictator? that is a question i've had for years.

"Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???"

i would concur for sure that michael indeed got impressed with the glitter and monumentality. however, i think he was intrigued (and impressed) with how the dictators marketed themselves. he acknowledged looking at them as celebrities in a way. i don't think one bit of his observations and actions were ironic. i think he respected how one person could rally hundereds of thousands of people with one wipe of the forehead... with one sentence... again, michael is keen on the study of subconscious thought.

many public figures study hypnotic technique... one of the doctors who teach this technique is milton erickson. it's been said that barack obama has used this technique. the school of hynosis is actually interesting; albeit not one i would want to extensively use. it's dangerous stuff. i have a feeling, in some way, michael studied some of this, in his studies on subconscious thought.

i know for sure he has studies the speech patterns of adolph hitler, as well as his body language. he has acknowledged this. in NO WAY do i think michael's approved of any totalitarian regime. again, i think he studied this stuff purely for marketing purposes. this is what i gatrher, from hearing him speak about these things in interviews and such. and in looking at his body language. i saw this when he did the dangerous shows. how he catapulted out onto the stage. this is not just the illusion of 'magic' he is doing. he's actually presenting some form of hypnosis.

since i believe he was controlled in some way in the 80s, i think he utilized some of the patterns which happened to him in his later performances.

hmmmmmmm... i take all things seriously if i am passionate about them. what i don't take seriously, i usually don't pay mind to it. i try to be very aware of the vibrations around me though. i tend not to pay attention to most things in popular culture, because they appear to focus on things i feel are trivial in the full scheme of things, such as material items. if i sense negative vibrations emanating from the speakers (as i do with lady gaga, two seconds after i hear or see her i get a headache. i think she is satanic). if i happen to see a popular culture figure speaking about a socio-political issue i feel passionate about, then it grabs my attention.

thanks again for all the wonderful questions!!! i hope i've answered them okay.

dag said:

greatpink said:

Do you completely identify MJ a person with MJ an artist/public figure/guy in the videos?

If not, which criteria do you use to keep them separate?

Do you believe that every his public move was either political or social message and expressed exactly his position and views?

Did it also apply to his music videos?

Do you think they contained an element of… "doing what is considered to be cool at the time"? Flirting with public, taking into account its expectation?

Compromises?

Possibly, self-irony?

The women-subject doesn't appeal to me at all (sorry) - moreso, a dozen of users in this forum will tell you at once that MJ "had no issues with women at all, he chased them at the backseat, period", but I would like to know your opinion about HIStory era and his turn to totalitarian imagery.

That is, by the time the album came out and advertising company started, there was as good as no other way than… not to take it too seriously. We all bought it, of course - in fact, everybody I knew bought it: to express their support after the child molestation issue; but objectively - and visually - it was almost the worst stuff one could come to old continent with. For many - like a slap in the face. Hope, I don't have to explain why.

Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???

Would really like to know what you think of it; and, once again, about your criteria of taking an issue "absolutely, deadly seriously" and "not so very seriously".

I personally bought History cause I loved the music, not just to support him after the allegations even though I did support him all the time.

As for that History advertising, I got an answer during the Prime Time. "I wanted everybody´s attention." The expression on his face was quite revealing. I think he was really going for the controversy. Plus he was always obssesed with military stuff and the way he portrayed himself as a "leader that everyone adored" was more about him laughing in the face of those who fought they could destroy him. I took it as an irony. Knowing he was interested in history, he should have known what he was implying to, but I think he just did it for the controversy of it.

i actually was not familiar with any of the trials until much later. i think the HIStory album stands alone, outside of anything relating to sneddon or chandler. those are some solid songs regarding the state of humanity.

you make great points. i don't think what he did was ironic. to me, a lot of it was marketing. i answered that more in full though, regarding greatpink's questions. i also don't see it so much as controversy. i don't recall much happening from the marketing of the statue and such. but then again, i was not watching tv at that point, so... i do think wanting everyone's attention was somehow rooted in how he felt about himself as a whole, moreso than creating controversy. i somehow don't see michael publicly saying he had a low self-esteem. i would think that was pretty evident (as i would say he had a severe case of body dismorphic disorder), but nevertheless... but these are great points you make.

http://www.academia.edu/P...el_Jackson

There's only like 3 paper so far: one you have to purchase; the other is coming out in that Popular Music issue that's being released in 2012; and the other is online already.

Before, looking for these sort of things it was frustrating, because everything that was already out was based on false information and ignorance. Example, I will come across a great paper that's talking about him and then, all of a sudden, it will get into how he treid to deny his heritage and become one with everyone by bleaching his skin, and yada, yada. Then it gets hard to finish the paper, because I know that it's not true and as someone taking the time to write this entire essay how can you do your homework so half-assed? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I sense that, within time, there will be a lot of new things coming out, because great scholars should not have to rely on such resources such as: Star Magazine & other heavily biased media to get their research. =/ ESPECIALLY music critics. Like why are you talking about what color skin his children have and wtf does that have to do with the guitar riff in Beat It?!

[Edited 2/19/11 10:18am]

MJJstudent said:

dag said:

I personally bought History cause I loved the music, not just to support him after the allegations even though I did support him all the time.

As for that History advertising, I got an answer during the Prime Time. "I wanted everybody´s attention." The expression on his face was quite revealing. I think he was really going for the controversy. Plus he was always obssesed with military stuff and the way he portrayed himself as a "leader that everyone adored" was more about him laughing in the face of those who fought they could destroy him. I took it as an irony. Knowing he was interested in history, he should have known what he was implying to, but I think he just did it for the controversy of it.

i actually was not familiar with any of the trials until much later. i think the HIStory album stands alone, outside of anything relating to sneddon or chandler. those are some solid songs regarding the state of humanity.

you make great points. i don't think what he did was ironic. to me, a lot of it was marketing. i answered that more in full though, regarding greatpink's questions. i also don't see it so much as controversy. i don't recall much happening from the marketing of the statue and such. but then again, i was not watching tv at that point, so... i do think wanting everyone's attention was somehow rooted in how he felt about himself as a whole, moreso than creating controversy. i somehow don't see michael publicly saying he had a low self-esteem. i would think that was pretty evident (as i would say he had a severe case of body dismorphic disorder), but nevertheless... but these are great points you make.

Thank you two.

I am still not sure, how to evaluate this move in marketing perspective. Without a question, it was a very dangerous one, though. Europe is a ragtag multiculti bunch that tends to tolerate as good as everything, except - intolerance itself, and that is what totalitarianism is.

The second world war trauma is still there, there are still people who had experienced it living - as much as memory… uhm… "however it came to this".

The memory of forty years of cold war that followed - that almost ended up in a real war. Few times.

And then, there is Eastern Europe.

Perhaps, you heard stories, how during MJ's concert in West Berlin half of the East Berlin population stood gathered along the wall, hoping to hear, to catch something of it, anything? - HE was the first artist who managed to break through the iron curtain, HE became almost a symbol of FREEDOM and of everything Western society represented (including american dream ).

And then, suddenly - there you go.

So on the one hand, if MJ wanted attention, like @dag pointed out, he certainly got it.

On the other hand, it is hard to estimate how many potential fans he ultimately lost on it. To my knowledge, quite a lot. The stuff is plainly too serious to triffle with, and not everybody would be ready to take a deeper look at it considering MJ's personal issues - among everything else.

(Personally I took part in student action of supporting MJ and purchasing HIStory albums, but it took me few years to find out the music on it was really good, because - well, because of the cover )

@MJJStudent,

firstly, thank you for clarification about Napoleon's genocide - kept puzzling about it till now.

Secondly, there is actually only one point I completely disagree with you: I don't think that MJ was very good in versing his views. I've been left with a vague notion that he knew something that majority of humankind (including myself) didn't know. Or was unable to comprehend. (Some kind of epiphany, perhaps? A clue to saving the world?)

There was a time I spent all my time in trying to figure "it" out - books, interviews - and it was more or less always the same. ("Love. Just love". You know right? - So simple. So complicated). Finally gotta admit that MJ's message missed me completely and go on living with bad conscience.

Thirdly, yes, great answers, thank you. In a way I envy your clarity. For my part, I have a whole bunch of issues I still don't know what to think about - beginning with this very separation of a person from a public figure. I am not sure they could be contemplated as the same, but again not sure where to draw a line between them.

To tell the truth, now I am strongly tempted to start a discussion about concept of "innocence as world-saving force" - but this board is definitely a wrong place for it.

Unfortinaly, all deep-digging MJ boards I know are not in English - so I can't be helpful here.

Unholyalliance said:

http://www.academia.edu/P...el_Jackson

There's only like 3 paper so far: one you have to purchase; the other is coming out in that Popular Music issue that's being released in 2012; and the other is online already.

Before, looking for these sort of things it was frustrating, because everything that was already out was based on false information and ignorance. Example, I will come across a great paper that's talking about him and then, all of a sudden, it will get into how he treid to deny his heritage and become one with everyone by bleaching his skin, and yada, yada. Then it gets hard to finish the paper, because I know that it's not true and as someone taking the time to write this entire essay how can you do your homework so half-assed? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I sense that, within time, there will be a lot of new things coming out, because great scholars should not have to rely on such resources such as: Star Magazine & other heavily biased media to get their research. =/ ESPECIALLY music critics. Like why are you talking about what color skin his children have and wtf does that have to do with the guitar riff in Beat It?!

[Edited 2/19/11 10:18am]

I know right? It's like going on about the bass riff of "What's Going On" and trying to relate it to Marvin and Anna's impending divorce. It's like what does that have to do with the music?

MJJstudent said:

dag said:

And let me straigten this out. I do take Mike very serously, but you have to understand that you have joined a board where most of us have been here for a couple of years by now and we´ve discussed most of these things so many times that we are just tired of discussing them again. Or at least I am. There´s been so much drama over the years that it got tiring, so I just join only some of the discussion now.

i respect that very much, dag.

so again, if you can lead me to a person (or people) who is more than willing to have these sort of dialogs, i would sincerely appreciate it, from the bottom of my heart. thanks.

I don't know anyone personally. I surely am going to join in a discussion which is going to make me look on things from different angles etc. It's just that certain subjects have become tiresome to argue about.

dag said:

Too cute.

[img:$uid]http://img191.i.../img:$uid]

Cuuuuuuuuute pic

MJJstudent said:

i think largely, most of his moves were indeed political. as a black person in the u.s., he used his talents to strive for independence in a country which consistently/historically sets the rights of 'people of colour' back. as an artist, i don't think he was able to be open about this, until the release of 'dangerous'. politically, as an artist, i think he was under control/programmed by the industry for many years. as an INDIVIDUAL i think he saw the ramifications of remaining silent as a black man in this country, and decided to finally let his art speak on the issue.

in terms of the videos, i'd say 'man in the mirror' was overtly political. 'another part of me' i believe is another political song. i also think it's a direct reference to the universal laws: namely, the law of vibrational energy. i don't think he became overtly political (in the way i think most people view political thought) until the second half of 'black or white', when he morphed to and from a BLACK PANTHER. after that point, there was no turning back for him.

i think michael indeed deal with all of the qualities you named. he, like any artist of his stature, wanted to be 'hip with the times'. this is how 'dangerous' would come to be. teddy riley was the 'king of the new jacks' at the time, and michael wanted that element in his music. i think it served him well. he would also use hip hop in his music, as well as other producers who had some 'hip' quotient.

the man flirted with the public all the time... he learned from people like h.p. barnum and james brown. he was keen on managing his image. he created some hoaxes so people could keep talking about him. with that, there's some self-irony for sure, as what he started eventually backfired on him. did he make any compromises? yes. i think he made too many. he invited too many negative forces in his life, to meet whatever needs he felt were not being met.

with the totalitarian imagery... again, i think this was some grand scheme to grab media attention. it's not too different from what james brown or muhammad ali did, really. michael just took it to a different level. michael was interested in figures like stalin and hitler, historically. he was extremely interested in how hitler, in particular, marketed himself.

the other way to look at it is, michael never felt good about himself. he described to boteach that everything he did, it was so someone could say they loved him. was his HIStory marketing scheme a message for someone to say they love d him? i do not know. i think it's a mixture of marketing and low self-esteem. he needed to know he was still important in the public eye.

i agree with you in a way, it was sort of a slap in the face. again though. even though this may be difficult to do, i am trying to put myself in his shoes. he most likely figured that after the chandler issue, he'd get no support. so he went all out. he made his angriest album yet. and it actually ended up being his best, for all intents and purposes. it was really as if he did not care. so at the same time, i don't think it was a slap in the face, from a marketing perspective. or again, a self-esteem perspective.

on the surface it looks like his ego became inflated 20,000 times over. i mean, his people did the whole 'king of pop' thing, similar to james brown's 'godfather of soul', etc. but i think ultimately, michael's ego was so deflated it's not even funny. why did he choose the persona of a dictator? that is a question i've had for years.

"Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???"

i would concur for sure that michael indeed got impressed with the glitter and monumentality. however, i think he was intrigued (and impressed) with how the dictators marketed themselves. he acknowledged looking at them as celebrities in a way. i don't think one bit of his observations and actions were ironic. i think he respected how one person could rally hundereds of thousands of people with one wipe of the forehead... with one sentence... again, michael is keen on the study of subconscious thought.

many public figures study hypnotic technique... one of the doctors who teach this technique is milton erickson. it's been said that barack obama has used this technique. the school of hynosis is actually interesting; albeit not one i would want to extensively use. it's dangerous stuff. i have a feeling, in some way, michael studied some of this, in his studies on subconscious thought.

i know for sure he has studies the speech patterns of adolph hitler, as well as his body language. he has acknowledged this. in NO WAY do i think michael's approved of any totalitarian regime. again, i think he studied this stuff purely for marketing purposes. this is what i gatrher, from hearing him speak about these things in interviews and such. and in looking at his body language. i saw this when he did the dangerous shows. how he catapulted out onto the stage. this is not just the illusion of 'magic' he is doing. he's actually presenting some form of hypnosis.

since i believe he was controlled in some way in the 80s, i think he utilized some of the patterns which happened to him in his later performances.

See, I personally am not into politics at all that is why I may not see a lot of stuff as political. To me, he was just fighting for his "values" and some of the values might be connected with politics, but I wouldn't call him political. But I guess it's just us using different word for the same things.

I am sure MIchael studies history, politics, psychology, phylosophy and was keen to try some of the things himself in the art and I am sure that beside his unbelievable talent it helped him to get where he was. Actually reading the Schmuley interviews etc. I think Mike knew what he was doing even though somehow it might have not have the desired effect, but I am sure he knew why he did things.

As for his selfperception, that's interesting and hard to answer. He did say some shocking and contradicting things like "I hate my smile, but I'll do it for you" or "I look sticky" or "Yes, I am happy, I don't let anything bring me down". It's obvious where his low self-esteem regarding his looks came from - father, vitiligo, growing up in showbusiness - that's hell of issues to deal with regarding looks and I am sure that most of us would end up the same way if we were in his shoes. But at the same time, he knew he was special and that he had a special talent and that gave him confidence. I think he was fighting these contradicting feelings himself all his life trying consciously to be happy and confident and do as much about it as possible, but it's probably not that easy to erase those voices telling you you were ugly and looking in the mirror at constantly whiter skin from your head. But I respect him for the way he handled it even though some resent him for it.

MJJstudent said:

SherryJackson said:

I like to discuss Michael and his music deeply...but in recent months I've just taken a more laid back position. And now, I've been plagued by terrible dreams.. I realise why I don't do it as often.

So going back to laid back...

i have had very vivid, sometimes disturbing dreams after michael's transition. and i usually write the dreams down in a blog piece. for me, as i student i just take my study extremely seriously. and i have been on the search for others who take the studies just as seriously, with the same amount of enthusiasm. if i am not at work or doing radio, this is my life. even when i am spending time with someone, there is always an aspect of my studies at play. people know this about me.

when it comes to michael i am not laid back at all. to me, this is an emergency, to find a serious community. i have posted about this numerous times on my facebook page actually, and i don't really get a response. so as my friend says, you are just gonna have to go it alone. at some points i am okay with that. but we humans by nature seek companionship. it gets lonely being a solo student.

I take Michael and his music seriously. The man's my life. I've said this before, but "Michael Jackson The Experience" is my everyday life. Like dag said, a lot of stuff has been said already. Just lately I've been plagued by horrible dreams so I'm taking it easy right now.

[Edited 2/19/11 11:00am]

bboy87 said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

The BAD sessions are lookin more and more interesting as I look into them. Me thinks there may be two completely different sessions for BAD. ME thinks BAD was to originally be released sometime in 84 after VICTORY or in 85. We do know he was recording for the new album as early as 1983. Also, supposedly Epic stopped the release or Jermaine's Arista single "Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin" as they said if would interfere with MJ's upcoming release, BAD. I do think it was gonna be released sometime in 85, but with the success of THRILLER, why put out BAD so soon? THRILLER was still selling like hotcakes, so no reason to put out another album on the market at the same time.

So, I think he started to work on the record again after the THRILLER craze died down a bit. And then. from some other sources, BAD was to be a 3-Set LP with 30 songs.

[Edited 2/17/11 23:31pm]

plus I think they felt Michael was overexposed by then. Thinking of the appearances he made, there weren't many:

1985

January- We Are The World

March- London trip

October- Appearance in Australia

1986

May- New York appearance for Pepsi conference and Guiness Book presentation

Inglewood race track appearance

November/December- New York appearance for the Bad videoshoot

[Edited 2/18/11 11:24am]

Not to mention this 85 shade toss at Toy

Unholyalliance said:

http://www.academia.edu/P...el_Jackson

There's only like 3 paper so far: one you have to purchase; the other is coming out in that Popular Music issue that's being released in 2012; and the other is online already.

Before, looking for these sort of things it was frustrating, because everything that was already out was based on false information and ignorance. Example, I will come across a great paper that's talking about him and then, all of a sudden, it will get into how he treid to deny his heritage and become one with everyone by bleaching his skin, and yada, yada. Then it gets hard to finish the paper, because I know that it's not true and as someone taking the time to write this entire essay how can you do your homework so half-assed? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I sense that, within time, there will be a lot of new things coming out, because great scholars should not have to rely on such resources such as: Star Magazine & other heavily biased media to get their research. =/ ESPECIALLY music critics. Like why are you talking about what color skin his children have and wtf does that have to do with the guitar riff in Beat It?!

[Edited 2/19/11 10:18am]

WOW!!! thank you very much for this!!! this is what i am talking about! unfortunately still, it's relegated to the academic world. my hope is that people are discussing this stuff in the streets, in cafes, at michael-related events where 'the people' congregate.

greatpink said:

MJJstudent said:

i actually was not familiar with any of the trials until much later. i think the HIStory album stands alone, outside of anything relating to sneddon or chandler. those are some solid songs regarding the state of humanity.

you make great points. i don't think what he did was ironic. to me, a lot of it was marketing. i answered that more in full though, regarding greatpink's questions. i also don't see it so much as controversy. i don't recall much happening from the marketing of the statue and such. but then again, i was not watching tv at that point, so... i do think wanting everyone's attention was somehow rooted in how he felt about himself as a whole, moreso than creating controversy. i somehow don't see michael publicly saying he had a low self-esteem. i would think that was pretty evident (as i would say he had a severe case of body dismorphic disorder), but nevertheless... but these are great points you make.

Thank you two.

I am still not sure, how to evaluate this move in marketing perspective. Without a question, it was a very dangerous one, though. Europe is a ragtag multiculti bunch that tends to tolerate as good as everything, except - intolerance itself, and that is what totalitarianism is.

The second world war trauma is still there, there are still people who had experienced it living - as much as memory… uhm… "however it came to this".

The memory of forty years of cold war that followed - that almost ended up in a real war. Few times.

And then, there is Eastern Europe.

Perhaps, you heard stories, how during MJ's concert in West Berlin half of the East Berlin population stood gathered along the wall, hoping to hear, to catch something of it, anything? - HE was the first artist who managed to break through the iron curtain, HE became almost a symbol of FREEDOM and of everything Western society represented (including american dream ).

And then, suddenly - there you go.

So on the one hand, if MJ wanted attention, like @dag pointed out, he certainly got it.

On the other hand, it is hard to estimate how many potential fans he ultimately lost on it. To my knowledge, quite a lot. The stuff is plainly too serious to triffle with, and not everybody would be ready to take a deeper look at it considering MJ's personal issues - among everything else.

(Personally I took part in student action of supporting MJ and purchasing HIStory albums, but it took me few years to find out the music on it was really good, because - well, because of the cover )

@MJJStudent,

firstly, thank you for clarification about Napoleon's genocide - kept puzzling about it till now.

Secondly, there is actually only one point I completely disagree with you: I don't think that MJ was very good in versing his views. I've been left with a vague notion that he knew something that majority of humankind (including myself) didn't know. Or was unable to comprehend. (Some kind of epiphany, perhaps? A clue to saving the world?)

There was a time I spent all my time in trying to figure "it" out - books, interviews - and it was more or less always the same. ("Love. Just love". You know right? - So simple. So complicated). Finally gotta admit that MJ's message missed me completely and go on living with bad conscience.

Thirdly, yes, great answers, thank you. In a way I envy your clarity. For my part, I have a whole bunch of issues I still don't know what to think about - beginning with this very separation of a person from a public figure. I am not sure they could be contemplated as the same, but again not sure where to draw a line between them.

To tell the truth, now I am strongly tempted to start a discussion about concept of "innocence as world-saving force" - but this board is definitely a wrong place for it.

Unfortinaly, all deep-digging MJ boards I know are not in English - so I can't be helpful here.

perhaps i need to move out of the u.s.?

no, i think you've actually been pretty helpful- this is the sort of dialog i am looking for. i havew definitely heard about michael in relation to the berlin wall. i think there is a possibility that, with all of his intentions to 'heal the world' he may have framed that healing a bit too idealistically. i would not at all say he tried to be GOD; but he wanted the world to be a lot less colder than it is. and a lot of what he tried to do backfired on him. he put himself out there so much, without giving thought to how, socially, it may have affected other people. the whole 'attention-getting' thing, i think is very rooted in his need for love. and sometimes that need got comingled with negative energy, or people. i think, due to his childhood trauma there was an issue he had with boundaries. it's common in people who have childhood traumas.

i agree with you in some ways about his inability to verse his views, in ways a lot of us could comprehend. for instance, the 'there's nothing wrong with sharing your bed with a child." even if what he said was purely innocuous... how it came out had parents, in particular, doing double takes. i don't think michael minced words; i also think that he was never trained to deal with the 'real world' outside of his bubble, so how he views the world is going to be very different from the majority of us who have never experienced what he did. and he's going to say, "what did i say wrong?" again, it's perspective. i see the whole milatarism thing in the same way.

i think part of that has to do with his interest in the subconscious and mind control theory. i really do.

so i get it. i recognize both ends of the spectrum. again, yes. his message of love is very simple. it's so simple that we find it to be complicated, because we've been adulterated with what love is supposed to be. however, even though this is michael's main message, he was adulterated as a child, by living on the road in the early years. i think he just chose to stick with the 'peter pan' route as an extreme reaction again, to his trauma.

so much of how we live is based on our childhoods.

thanks for the kind words... there is no need to envy anything i say though. all i am is a student of michael. i do work to study every aspect of him- politically, artistically... and all of this is part of my journey. i have thought so much about this. i spent two years writing a book on this stuff. i ceased writing after his transition, out of respect.

the "innocense as world-saving force"... that is an interesting idea to discuss. it's essentially what STEVIE WONDER'S song, 'they won't go when i go' is about. or even 'jesus children of america'. it was a running theme in STEVIE'S music. moreso than michael's music, i would say.

Timmy84 said:

Unholyalliance said:

http://www.academia.edu/P...el_Jackson

There's only like 3 paper so far: one you have to purchase; the other is coming out in that Popular Music issue that's being released in 2012; and the other is online already.

Before, looking for these sort of things it was frustrating, because everything that was already out was based on false information and ignorance. Example, I will come across a great paper that's talking about him and then, all of a sudden, it will get into how he treid to deny his heritage and become one with everyone by bleaching his skin, and yada, yada. Then it gets hard to finish the paper, because I know that it's not true and as someone taking the time to write this entire essay how can you do your homework so half-assed? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I sense that, within time, there will be a lot of new things coming out, because great scholars should not have to rely on such resources such as: Star Magazine & other heavily biased media to get their research. =/ ESPECIALLY music critics. Like why are you talking about what color skin his children have and wtf does that have to do with the guitar riff in Beat It?!

[Edited 2/19/11 10:18am]

I know right? It's like going on about the bass riff of "What's Going On" and trying to relate it to Marvin and Anna's impending divorce. It's like what does that have to do with the music?

very true... ESPECIALLY when JAMES JAMERSON is the greatest bassist of all times! there needs to be some sort of event where people honor that man. he did so much for music.

dag said:

MJJstudent said:

i respect that very much, dag.

so again, if you can lead me to a person (or people) who is more than willing to have these sort of dialogs, i would sincerely appreciate it, from the bottom of my heart. thanks.

I don't know anyone personally. I surely am going to join in a discussion which is going to make me look on things from different angles etc. It's just that certain subjects have become tiresome to argue about.

again, i totally understand, and recognize... for me, i never tire of this stuff. this is the bulk of what i talk about. the state of politics, the economy, etc. i've been doing this i was a teenager. it just makes me happy. and a lot of these discussions trace back to michael for me.

dag said:

MJJstudent said:

i think largely, most of his moves were indeed political. as a black person in the u.s., he used his talents to strive for independence in a country which consistently/historically sets the rights of 'people of colour' back. as an artist, i don't think he was able to be open about this, until the release of 'dangerous'. politically, as an artist, i think he was under control/programmed by the industry for many years. as an INDIVIDUAL i think he saw the ramifications of remaining silent as a black man in this country, and decided to finally let his art speak on the issue.

in terms of the videos, i'd say 'man in the mirror' was overtly political. 'another part of me' i believe is another political song. i also think it's a direct reference to the universal laws: namely, the law of vibrational energy. i don't think he became overtly political (in the way i think most people view political thought) until the second half of 'black or white', when he morphed to and from a BLACK PANTHER. after that point, there was no turning back for him.

i think michael indeed deal with all of the qualities you named. he, like any artist of his stature, wanted to be 'hip with the times'. this is how 'dangerous' would come to be. teddy riley was the 'king of the new jacks' at the time, and michael wanted that element in his music. i think it served him well. he would also use hip hop in his music, as well as other producers who had some 'hip' quotient.

the man flirted with the public all the time... he learned from people like h.p. barnum and james brown. he was keen on managing his image. he created some hoaxes so people could keep talking about him. with that, there's some self-irony for sure, as what he started eventually backfired on him. did he make any compromises? yes. i think he made too many. he invited too many negative forces in his life, to meet whatever needs he felt were not being met.

with the totalitarian imagery... again, i think this was some grand scheme to grab media attention. it's not too different from what james brown or muhammad ali did, really. michael just took it to a different level. michael was interested in figures like stalin and hitler, historically. he was extremely interested in how hitler, in particular, marketed himself.

the other way to look at it is, michael never felt good about himself. he described to boteach that everything he did, it was so someone could say they loved him. was his HIStory marketing scheme a message for someone to say they love d him? i do not know. i think it's a mixture of marketing and low self-esteem. he needed to know he was still important in the public eye.

i agree with you in a way, it was sort of a slap in the face. again though. even though this may be difficult to do, i am trying to put myself in his shoes. he most likely figured that after the chandler issue, he'd get no support. so he went all out. he made his angriest album yet. and it actually ended up being his best, for all intents and purposes. it was really as if he did not care. so at the same time, i don't think it was a slap in the face, from a marketing perspective. or again, a self-esteem perspective.

on the surface it looks like his ego became inflated 20,000 times over. i mean, his people did the whole 'king of pop' thing, similar to james brown's 'godfather of soul', etc. but i think ultimately, michael's ego was so deflated it's not even funny. why did he choose the persona of a dictator? that is a question i've had for years.

"Now, would you concur in that-time-assumption that MJ "just" got impressed with the superficial glitter and monumentality of totalitarianism, and played with its symbols without realizing WHAT exactly they represented?

Or would you say it was a political message and he actually approved of this regime or, at least, saw its good sides? Enough to propagate it?

Or did he mean it ironically???"

i would concur for sure that michael indeed got impressed with the glitter and monumentality. however, i think he was intrigued (and impressed) with how the dictators marketed themselves. he acknowledged looking at them as celebrities in a way. i don't think one bit of his observations and actions were ironic. i think he respected how one person could rally hundereds of thousands of people with one wipe of the forehead... with one sentence... again, michael is keen on the study of subconscious thought.

many public figures study hypnotic technique... one of the doctors who teach this technique is milton erickson. it's been said that barack obama has used this technique. the school of hynosis is actually interesting; albeit not one i would want to extensively use. it's dangerous stuff. i have a feeling, in some way, michael studied some of this, in his studies on subconscious thought.

i know for sure he has studies the speech patterns of adolph hitler, as well as his body language. he has acknowledged this. in NO WAY do i think michael's approved of any totalitarian regime. again, i think he studied this stuff purely for marketing purposes. this is what i gatrher, from hearing him speak about these things in interviews and such. and in looking at his body language. i saw this when he did the dangerous shows. how he catapulted out onto the stage. this is not just the illusion of 'magic' he is doing. he's actually presenting some form of hypnosis.

since i believe he was controlled in some way in the 80s, i think he utilized some of the patterns which happened to him in his later performances.

See, I personally am not into politics at all that is why I may not see a lot of stuff as political. To me, he was just fighting for his "values" and some of the values might be connected with politics, but I wouldn't call him political. But I guess it's just us using different word for the same things.

I am sure MIchael studies history, politics, psychology, phylosophy and was keen to try some of the things himself in the art and I am sure that beside his unbelievable talent it helped him to get where he was. Actually reading the Schmuley interviews etc. I think Mike knew what he was doing even though somehow it might have not have the desired effect, but I am sure he knew why he did things.

As for his selfperception, that's interesting and hard to answer. He did say some shocking and contradicting things like "I hate my smile, but I'll do it for you" or "I look sticky" or "Yes, I am happy, I don't let anything bring me down". It's obvious where his low self-esteem regarding his looks came from - father, vitiligo, growing up in showbusiness - that's hell of issues to deal with regarding looks and I am sure that most of us would end up the same way if we were in his shoes. But at the same time, he knew he was special and that he had a special talent and that gave him confidence. I think he was fighting these contradicting feelings himself all his life trying consciously to be happy and confident and do as much about it as possible, but it's probably not that easy to erase those voices telling you you were ugly and looking in the mirror at constantly whiter skin from your head. But I respect him for the way he handled it even though some resent him for it.

again, you make very excellennt points. if we don't have a particular interest in something, yes, it would be a bit difficult to see it in things, for sure.

i think for me, i recognize a lot of this stuff, having grown up in an abusive household, being told i was ugly, worthless, my features are ugly, etc. i recognize a lot of michael's behaviors in myself. this is one of the main reasons i chose to focus my studies on him. and as a person who began studying anarchist theory at the age of 15; to find out michael studied a lot of these things too, relating to socio-political theory, it just makes me so happy, you don't even know.

SherryJackson said:

MJJstudent said:

i have had very vivid, sometimes disturbing dreams after michael's transition. and i usually write the dreams down in a blog piece. for me, as i student i just take my study extremely seriously. and i have been on the search for others who take the studies just as seriously, with the same amount of enthusiasm. if i am not at work or doing radio, this is my life. even when i am spending time with someone, there is always an aspect of my studies at play. people know this about me.

when it comes to michael i am not laid back at all. to me, this is an emergency, to find a serious community. i have posted about this numerous times on my facebook page actually, and i don't really get a response. so as my friend says, you are just gonna have to go it alone. at some points i am okay with that. but we humans by nature seek companionship. it gets lonely being a solo student.

I take Michael and his music seriously. The man's my life. I've said this before, but "Michael Jackson The Experience" is my everyday life. Like dag said, a lot of stuff has been said already. Just lately I've been plagued by horrible dreams so I'm taking it easy right now.

[Edited 2/19/11 11:00am]

i see him as representing an umbrella for how our society is set up, in relation to the concept of 'family', of persistence, of goals, of commerce. he is a compelling fellow.

I don't think people are having a go at you MJJstudent.

They just have a differing point of view on the Rape article. And it's fine for you to post it, but if you want to have a discussion and critique the work you have to be open to people disagreeing just as passionately.

Personally I found the article lacking credibility as I felt it wasn't written objectively but twisted the intent of lyrics to a predisposed point of view. There was no new insight in it (to my point of view).

I don't disagree with you posting it or wanting to discuss it - but as I said you have to be open to other people feeling it is ridiculous, or talking it down. Be open to the same level of critique as the article levelled.

Keep posting, keep in the discussion, and keep open.

source: http://today.msnbc.msn.co...rtainment/

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

I know right? It's like going on about the bass riff of "What's Going On" and trying to relate it to Marvin and Anna's impending divorce. It's like what does that have to do with the music?

very true... ESPECIALLY when JAMES JAMERSON is the greatest bassist of all times! there needs to be some sort of event where people honor that man. he did so much for music.

I agree 110%.

It's getting so hard to discuss MJ though I love him so much. I feel like I let myself let him hurt me mentally for getting so attached.

mimi07 said:

Now this is why the revolutions are poppin' up everywhere...these rich folk got way too much time on their hands!

Still tho....awesome.

So I was baking sugar cookies today...and naturally I had to make a sugar cookie Thriller bear! Thought I'd share it with y'all..I thought it was cute.

NaughtyKitty said:

SherryJackson said:

Tatiana Yvonne as of January 2010.

I heart her I'm looking forward to her new book that's coming out in March.

she looks good but a new book about what? i know she already wrote one about michael is this another?

SherryJackson said:

So I was baking sugar cookies today...and naturally I had to make a sugar cookie Thriller bear! Thought I'd share it with y'all..I thought it was cute.

aw cute

Swa said:

Ubisoft’s Dance Games Booming, Expect More Michael Jackson

As you might have guessed after seeing the NPD chart for November andDecember, Ubisoft’s dance games are booming. In the third quarter of their ongoing fiscal year alone, Ubisoft’s dance titles (Just Dance, Just Dance 2, Just Dance Kids,Michael Jackson: The Experience and Dance on Broadway) sold over 10.5 million units.

While Just Dance 2 is a Wii-exclusive game, Michael Jackson: The Experience is currently available on Wii, DS and PSP, with Kinect and PlayStation Move versions slated to release in April. Taking all these versions into account, Ubisoft hope to cross sales of 4 million units with Michael Jackson.

Ubisoft CEO, Yves Guillemot, also confirmed during an investor Q&A earlier today, that we’d be seeing more versions of Michael Jackson: The Experience “over the next couple of years” and that we can expect to see the Just Dance franchise expand to other platforms.

they need to dig deepr in Michael's catalog. They should add songs like Scream, shake your body,life of the party, moving violation are a few songs that would be cool to add.

Here's a cover I did of Much Too Soon (unmixed just for fun) for a friend's b-day. Enjoy... Anyone that checks it out.

NMuzakNSoul said:

Here's a cover I did of Much Too Soon (unmixed just for fun) for a friend's b-day. Enjoy... Anyone that checks it out.

OMG....I was so touched that I actually dropped a tear ..seriously , simply amazing and you are very talented.....Def a Fav....amazing.

seeingvoices12 said:

NMuzakNSoul said:

Here's a cover I did of Much Too Soon (unmixed just for fun) for a friend's b-day. Enjoy... Anyone that checks it out.

OMG....I was so touched that I actually dropped a tear ..seriously , simply amazing and you are very talented.....Def a Fav....amazing.

Thank you man and glad you enjoyed it and was so moved by it I appreciate the compliments and words.