The death of an icon
Posted by Nick Milne on June 26, 2009
So, Michael Jackson. I’m about the least competent commentator on this subject in the entire world, his general ouevre having passed me by more or less completely, but there have been some elements to all of this that have intrigued me.
I’ve heard some of his songs. They were pretty good. I get that they were excellent and groundbreaking in terms of pop music, but, shit son, it’s just pop music. Amazing pop music is only pretty good music, and it has to struggle even to be that, a lot of the time. Jackson’s music seemed to me to always be fighting against its own artificiality. There were times when a certain authenticity came through – “Ben” is a good example – but it would be hard to describe something like “Billy Jean” or “Black or White” as being in any sense innovative or accomplished in terms of music. The chief draw of the man for me was always his dancing and his wider sense of the theatric. It’s hard to watch something like the video for “Thriller”, or again, “Black or White,” and not be impressed in spite of one’s self. There was a real talent there, and a deft hand in how he presented himself and his associates, and he used both for all they were worth. One might be scandalised that so much time and money were spent in the production of mere music videos, but at least it can be said that you can easily see how both time and money were spent.
But man, he was pretty weird. Most of it is basically proverbial by now so I don’t intend to spend any time ennumerating his list of sins and misdeeds, whether actual or only suspected. It remains the case that he was a man who suffered much and who led an awful and in some ways monstrous life, and whatever his desserts may be at this, its relatively early end, it would likely be safe to say that “well done thou good and faithful servant” will not be the Lord’s immediate and heartfelt response.
All of which underscores something that bothers me quite a bit. I understand that using the occasion of a man’s death as a platform for ideological grandstanding is unseemly, but I get so few opportunities to do it, after all.
The messages of support and remembrance that I’ve been seeing on message boards and comment sections about Jackson’s passing have all been pretty positive. “Your music was great and we’ll miss you.” Fair enough. A goodly number of them, though, have taken the basically necessary form of “you were weird and you did some bad stuff with kids, but your music was great so it’s all good.”
Well, great; how charitable of you all. “You were apparently a pederast, but you were also the King of Pop so we’re fine with it in the final analysis.” Mighty fine of you, one and all.
A man molests some children (purportedly) and gives us pop music in exchange and it’s basically fine.
But, say, a centuries-spanning Church runs an entire network of universities and hospitals, and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity every single year, and performs a thousand other acts of kindness for the impoverished and the sick and the threatened and the sad throughout the world, and man, when trouble comes along, people can’t call it quits on the whole thing fast enough. We’re the most corrupt and dangerous and destructive force in the history of mankind. We’re the source of all human suffering. Our immediate dissolution is necessary for the safety and succour of the world.
Maybe we should have moonwalked.

Brian Visaggio said
If you aren’t invested in pop music, then no, you aren’t going to understand how bizarrely influential Michael Jackson was. You just aren’t. And while pop music isn’t, of course, by *any* stretch of the imagination the same as Mozart’s Lacrimosa, it doesn’t purport to be, and has the added bragging rights that people actually listen to it. As much as I like classical music and opera — and I do — to be honest, I don’t really ever pop it in. I’m much more likely to find myself listening to happy, clappy pop music that blends genres.
And therein is what made MJ so damned important.
You maintain that Billie Jean, for instance, or Black or White weren’t accomplished or innovative; I’d argue that Billie Jean in particular was extremely so, especially in the innovative part; the Jackson-Jones collaboration had the amazing ability to blend differing musical traditions together; the whole Thriller album does from disco to rock to soul to r & b to balladeering and back again, often within the same song, in a way *nobody had tried before*. Modern pop music finds Michael Jackson, almost universally, as the Nearest Common Ancestor.
Let’s also not forget that everyone and their dog owned Thriller. If nothing else, the sheer numbers make Jackson’s influence important, by virtue of osmosis.
I agree, though, with the draw of his dancing.
As for the polemical point at the end, remember that people are certainly, um, *fickle*, and for all of MJ’s dancing, he never made moral demands of himself, let alone his audience. Imagine if, after Thriller had come out, he’d gone around preaching the Gospel and insisting people turn from their sins. They would have tossed him aside. Kind of like Prince.
People don’t want to hear that they can be better, because it means there’s something lacking in how they are.
The Great MJ Debate « Saint Superman said
[...] Nick Milne is an emminent contrarian. This is why we love him. [...]
CEK said
Nick, I think most of the empathy comes from the public’s real and assumed knowledge of his childhood. He was, sadly, the best (worst?) example of a child prodigy misused and abused by his parents and his handlers.
And fwiw, the accusations of sexual impropriety with children were merely that, accusations. I’m pretty sure the worst that was revealed by the several investigations into his relationship with children was a bizarre, fraternal affection for pre-adolescents.
Ransom said
I always got the impression that the fixation on children was an attempt to create an idealized childhood that he never had by virtue of his very busy and very public life. Children are supposed to be happy, and he hadn’t found happiness, so he was trying to find it by becoming a “real” child, and he had the (mis?)fortune to be wealthy enough to make a serious effort to do it. He always seemed so disconnected from reality that it was perfectly plausible he either simply didn’t get the “adult sleeping in a bed with children not their own is creepy” paradigm, didn’t view himself as an adult, or was so consumed with his mania that he simply didn’t care how it looked.
Brian Patrick Cork said
I likely drift with CEK and Ransom with this one… Michael Jackson was sad, and probably very much alone in an odd sort of way. But, he also seemed to draw magic from some place deep, and clearly touched millions of people across several generations.
For all his faults – the bizarre, and fantastic, Michael Jackson entertained us. He also delighted us. We danced, we hummed, we clapped and sang to his songs.
Cork
Mark W. said
The real measure for an artist’s influence is in the quantity and quality of other artists that list him as a contributing factor or influence in their own music. People may like his music and his videos, but if musicians and artists don’t list Michael Jackson as an influence in their own music, than the title of King of Pop fits very well–all fizzle, no depth, shallow entertainment only.
Brian Patrick Cork said
Mark W:
Michael Jackson moved millions. They responded passionately to his music.
How many other artists can say the same?
And, since many (probably most) of them can’t, why should Jackson’s music necessarily be judged next to theirs – as opposed to the number of people that buy (and attend concerts) and enjoy the music?
Dollar signs and related statistics (numbers) don’t lie. And those factors are less subjective, and certainly more fair, than the opinions of other artists less favored, for any reason(s).
Cork
CEK said
I’m not sure how we can measure MJ’s influence. Given that many contemporary performers were born after his greatest period (the mid 80s), how many of them would really list him as an influence? And how many people would willingly list him as a major influence after his lfe became a persistent blooper reel? I’d like to hear what the record execs and producers have to say. Did MJ’s take on pop r&b change the type of music their talent scouts were looking for? Or was he just the first to do something that was already becoming popular anyway?
Brian Visaggio said
Everybody and their dog list him as an influence.