Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Cherrypicker 
 So Michael Jackson is dead 

So Michael Jackson is dead

So Michael Jackson is dead. He brings the world together in a way that no recent global crises has been able to. David Pope's Saturday cartoon said it all: brutal oppression of dissent in Iran? Global warming? Hey – Wacko Jacko is dead, that's the REAL story here.

But let's face it, he is – was – an interesting guy. You couldn’t make up a more lurid, bizarre story. Imagine the pitch to a movie producer:

Talented black child star survives abusive father, grows up to become hugely successful white star, releases best selling album of all time, becomes 'king of pop', marries daughter of 'king of rock', undergoes plastic surgery in attempt to look like Diana Ross, ends up looking like Manga rendering of skinny drag queen, divorces daughter of king of rock for frumpy nurse, has two babies with frumpy nurse, divorces frumpy nurse, has another baby with anonymous surrogate mother, dangles said baby over hotel balcony for world's media, takes kids and retreats to fantasy property he calls Neverland to relive lost childhood, weathers two child molestation charges, dies of heart attack on eve of most anticipated comeback tour ever.

'Sorry, that’s just TOO weird. A story needs to bear SOME resemblance to reality'.

But it was real.

So, apparently, is the grief over his death. I've seen the news bulletins. I don't get it, at least not about Michael Jackson. I'm generation X, so Jackson was supposedly my Elvis, and while I thought he was a great entertainer, musically he seemed like a lightweight to me.

Sure, the guy was talented, and a fantastic entertainer. He may have been the best dancer ever to come out of pop music. James Brown, Prince and Madonna all look positively arthritic compared with Jackson at his peak. All that crotch grabbing has now become a staple of pop dance moves, but nobody else has done it with such finesse.

When he did those lightning-fast, freeze frame movements in sync with a phalanx of dancers, he had a breakthrough blueprint for countless film clips since. It was Bollywood on steroids. Jackson guy could defy gravity in a way that was thrilling to watch. And some of those moves were tricky, man – I tried to master the moonwalk, oh, two or three times, and people just laughed. I laughed.

But Thriller? It might have sold 50 gazillion copies, but I think the best thing about it is Eddie Van Halen's guitar solo on Beat it. Which, by the way, is a corker - it could be his best.

There's this idea going around that by selling however many times more copies than other albums, Thriller is better by the same factor. I'm not so sure. Is Thriller really 10 times better than Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, or 8,000,000 times better than The Drones' Gala Mill?

My favourite Jackson moment was not from Thriller, but from Off The Wall. I was a bit of a dancing fool in my teens, and it’s hard to think of a more inspirational song for booty shaking than Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough. Take a funk groove, add a thrilling string arrangement and some punchy horns, put a gorgeous young black (then) man in front, with moves to die for and a vocal performance of barely contained exuberance, and you've got dance floor GOLD, baby. Best disco song ever.

But after the gushing praise of the last few days, I think some perspective is needed. As usual, the media (The Canberra Times excepted, of course) does an about-face and goes into hyperbole on these occasions. Suddenly, Jacko goes from Wacko to 'musical genius'.

I've got one word to say to that claim: Prince.

Jackson had Thriller, a superbly produced album (that’s Quincy Jones, folks) of pretty good pop songs, of which Jackson wrote four. In comparison, Prince has a fat oeuvre, which, for all its duds, is embarrassingly brilliant by comparison. Stack up Thriller against any of Prince's best albums – Sign 'o' the Times, Purple Rain, 1999, Parade, The Love Symbol Album – and tell me, if Jackson is a musical genius, what does that make Prince?

Lyrically, Prince is sometimes (but not always) silliness writ large, but musically he moves through psychedelia, funk, rock, pop, R&B, jazz, and uncategorisable music with an assurance and flair that leaves Jackson in the dust. Prince was far more innovative - witness the arrangement of his smash hit Kiss, a funky piece of seduction built on a minimalist melding of guitar, keyboard, drum machine, and vocals – no bass!

And that's just the pop songs. Some of Prince's best songs have been overlooked, such as the heartbreaking Sometimes is Snows in April. His willingness – his need - to experiment with sounds and traditional song structures recalls another true musical genius, Hendrix. They both could have come from Mars, and that's why, perhaps, they had a difficult relationship with the mainstream.

As well as being much funkier than Jackson, Prince was darker, too. Jackson's Thriller is no spookier than a ride on the ghost train at the Canberra Show, but Prince's edgy Sign 'O' the Times is still both a chilling evocation of a moment in time and a compelling exploration of a more general existential angst.

Jackson could put out an album called Bad, but Prince was BELIEVABLY bad - in a good way. Parents of teens would approve of Beat it, but not Sexy MF.

Prince was also unbelievably prolific. While Jackson was playing at being Peter Pan in Neverland, Prince was knocking out, what, two albums a year? Have a look at the song list on the Prince best of sometime – there's no contest on who was more industrious.

Jackson was easily digestible, and there's nothing wrong with that. His music sounds good – it is good. But the scale of a musician's celebrity is not always directly proportional to their musical talent. If musical achievement is measured in imagination, innovation, and sheer musical power, Jackson was Salieri to Prince's Mozart.

And what kind of coverage will Prince get when he bites the big one? You can bet it won't be on the scale of what we've seen in the last few days.

But then, when Mozart died he was wrapped in a sheet and tossed into a pauper's grave.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
2

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
When is 'music' defined? The checklist has to have a consistant 'chord'- a rythem- a vocal apppeal. A lyric- a meaning. If you put MJ in front of a microphone-no triangular dances-remove the instrument noise and just listen to "The Voice" - there is the talent, a squeaky irritating juttery 'rush-on'. A breakdown of The Doors- Soundstage performances DVD defines the real talent by removing the instruments and just listen to Jim Morrison- the crooner barritone, to the organist and then, the rythem guitar and 'define' the historical musical combinations, when cobmined, enhanced to make,why they had the first 7 Gold albums in American history. Listen to the poetry in verse and absorb the deep rich variations. Not hype with repetitious jittery 'Just beat it, just beat it'. The 'majic' is in the combination of the talents of which MJ I found was nausating. Even Sammy Davis Jrn did a live dance 'moonwalk' that revealed it was no secret dance trick invented by MJ. The 1920's tap-dancers- Morrison Brothers are breathtaking leaping from table to table. Sorry, Gen Y has been conned with processed 'noise'.
Posted by adaptapensioner.com, 1/07/2009 12:55:20 PM
Michael Jackson was an entertainer, all singing, all dancing, crowd pleaser. And he is one of, if not, the best. As a kid growing up in the 80's he was so cool. It is bubble gum stuff, but very entertaining for those who do want something simple and not too challenging. Musically I agree that Eddie Van Halen's solo is absolutely spectacular and the best piece of music in any of Michael Jackson's songs. I've always been surprised that it doesn't show up in more guitar magazines as one of the greatest. Having said that, MJ was the king of catchy, groovy musical licks that just hooked you in. Just think about the base line for Billie Jean, Beat It and Smooth Criminal
Posted by ntg, 1/07/2009 12:58:03 PM
Can't we PLEASE talk about something else!?!?!?!
Posted by Chooka, 1/07/2009 3:44:44 PM
YEHHH!!! Letts have a'chook-a-raffle' now that some intelligence has been expressed instead of sentiment. Nothing like Australian's- we are programmed to 'flip-the -pages- of- a-glossy-gossip-magazine. And we wonder about book reading when flash cards and electronic gizmo's are our daily comsumable. I happen to had enjoyed the article's comparison.
Posted by adaptapensioner.com, 1/07/2009 5:14:46 PM
So some people really want others to admire them for acting as if they have superior taste.Not very melodic behaviour really. Jacko was a great,unless you're in denial. Is Mozart better? That's a matter of opinion. It's a sure sign of insecurity to assert that your taste makes you superior. It doesn't matter if you're black or white,but if you're bitter and twisted it does matter. Please get over it as quickly and quietly as possible.
Posted by zippo, 1/07/2009 7:16:38 PM
I was sick of him when he was alive and now i am sick of him now he is dead. I am relieved for him, what a life!
Posted by Danny, 1/07/2009 10:11:39 PM
Stop calling him that. He was a legend. No amount of puerile name-calling can bring him down...only it demeans this country and it's people when commentators who are talentless and whom are ignorant fools. Whenever I hear people mock or degrade Michael Jackson all I observe in those people is jealousy. Reading such a title was not welcome to me. Journalist hacks and careless, petty editors who write this stuff oonly reflect badly on the standards of journalism in this newspaper and Australia in general. Michael Jackson's sheer creativity and the rare, unique qualities of his personality are powerful and are treasured by millions of people. Only debased people with the intellect of a rock would allow jealousy and hate to command their writing (as shown in the disgraceful titling of this writing piece).
Posted by David, 2/07/2009 12:01:55 AM
Hi Chooka Yes you can talk about something else. Its not like you were dragged into this discussion was it? You would of had to sort the home page to even find this artilce. So why cry about it? Just move on to something else if you are not interested.
Posted by Steve, 2/07/2009 10:08:29 AM
the difference is I don't know the songs/albums you are talking about with Prince
Posted by Sammy, 3/07/2009 5:56:45 PM
David, he was a legend in his own lunch box. Over-hyped and over-rated. There are many, many more talented people out there. Get of your arse and take a look away from the mainstream BS.
Posted by Sam, 3/07/2009 10:10:39 PM
1 | 2  |  next >
Cherrypicker
Canberra Times reporter Dave Curry casts a discerning eye over the music world to bring you new and old gems from a variety of genres.

MOST POPULAR

Yourguide to Your Toyota
Red Hot Deals at Eurobodalla! click now
 
University of Canberra - click here
 
 
James Bond Happy Hour at Flint - click now
 
Click here to read See Canberra online!
 
Ready, Set. Drive!
 
Classifieds
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...