|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Hear the Latest! (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Indeed. (And perchance another notable "Michael"--Vick--will be analogously espoused?) ;-)
Fortunately, the rules stipulate that only living persons can actually be nominated for that coveted honor. (Otherwise the noble inventor of dynamite would soon surely spin in his grave.) ;-)
|
Jul 29 '09
6:59 am PDT
|
|
Hear the Latest! (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Thousands of fans in LA have started a campaign to award Michael Jackson a posthumous Nobel Prize....Apparently not a joke. What category? Paedophilia?
Vic
|
Jul 29 '09
5:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: Great review... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Gary, hey, I really appreciate your taking the time to read, rate and comment on my piece.
Mike
|
Jul 28 '09
5:55 pm PDT
|
|
Great review... (Reply to this comment)
by garyguitar1117
I feel exactly as you do. Thanks.
|
Jul 28 '09
1:50 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: well said... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Thanks again, Mary. (Such a kind compliment! It "made" my night!) :-)
Mike
|
Jul 18 '09
7:21 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: well said... (Reply to this comment)
by doglover
Yes, my favorites too... "Born to Run" and "Thunder Road"! You Rock! Always a pleasure to read. Can always tell you put alot of heart into your writing. Best of everything, Mary
|
Jul 18 '09
7:05 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I agree and would add... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Hi, and thanks for your comment!
Regarding the undeniably admirable Joe Satriani, although Wikipedia (which, as a "final arbiter" is admittedly not always above reproach) does duly mention that he’s a songwriter, its text article isn’t headed such that it "first and foremost" indicates or suggests that he’s virtually as prominent or acclaimed a composer as he is an instrumentalist. Hence, at least for the moment, I think I'll hold off on adding Satriani to my list of very widely (if not "universally") recognized composer-musicians. Admittedly, I'm on inescapably soft ground here, but, hey, my piece’s concluding “names list” not only belongs (secondarily) to my readers but also, (primarily) to moi. ;-) In other words, at least on "my" tenuous bit of turf here in cyberspace, I get to make the final call, and there will inevitably be a bit of bias reflecting how I happen to perceive a given composer-musician's relative rank, fame or importance vis-a-vis his powerful competition. Consequently (and quite obviously), my "only somewhat negotiable" list of names is (unapologetically) rather “arbitrary” and can never satisfy everybody. ("Sorry!") ;-)
Regarding the fabulous Andres Segovia (whom I have long revered as a consummate instrumentalist), neither Wikipedia nor my copy of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians indicates that he was/is a composer (not that I find it hard to believe that he did compose, at least, the occasional piece).
Aaron Copland did originally cross my mind, even though I myself don't prize his collective oeuvre quite as much as that of any of the other "classical" composers currently on my piece's "names list." (This is partly because I frankly could do without ever again hearing "Hoe-Down" (from Rodeo), which movement happens to slightly grate on my sensibilities and—IMO—has been unaccountably overplayed). But (now that I've gotten that off my chest), I must grudgingly grant that Copland was/is "the 'dean' of American composers;" and I do enjoy much of his music. Hence I’ll shortly proceed to add him to the list. (I suppose I should've included him from the get-go.)
As for Antonio Vivaldi, I frankly just (momentarily) forgot to mention him [in much the same way that I'd originally forgotten several male/female "pop" names before belatedly adding 'em once this or that "commenter" (below) called 'em to my attention]. My goodness, did the venerable Vivaldi ever compose anything that wasn't, at least, likeable? Not only was he unbelievably prolific, but many of his worthiest works (including the operatic ones) remain little known. Certainly I'll unreservedly add his name to the list, and thanks for reminding me!
Obviously, countless other names remain unfairly absent from my "list," which, after all, was originally intended to be merely a "general guide," not "comprehensive" or "definitive." ;-)
Best regards, and enjoy the weekend!
Mike
|
Jul 18 '09
12:43 pm PDT
|
|
I agree and would add... (Reply to this comment)
by dncswknivs
Joe Satriani, Aaron Copeland, Andres Segovia and Vivaldi. Just a couple that come to mind that you didn't mention, all who possess greater composing AND performance capabilities than MJ.
|
Jul 18 '09
7:49 am PDT
|
|
Re: well said... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
"Doglover,"
Though I certainly recognize Springsteen's rather longstanding popularity, and though I duly respect his accomplishments (and even pretty well "like" a few of his songs, especially "Born to Run"), I must confide that I was a bit reluctant to add him to my list of "timelessly great musician-composers." For one thing, I figured that once I added "The Boss" (?!), I might as well go on to add the somewhat comparably popular, worthy and sometimes enjoyable John Denver, Barry Manilow, or even the short-lived Jim Croce, not to mention (seemingly endless) scores of other names.
That said, I also originally sort of thought of my piece as an "interactive" vehicle via which readers could "nominate" their own “favorite” (and ostensibly "timelessly great") musician-composers. In that spirit, I've cheerfully, albeit slightly hesitantly, compromised here by adding your evidently beloved Bruce to the mix. ;-)
I hope that this pleases you, and thanks, as always, for your kind read 'n rate (and comment)! :-)
Mike
P.S.: Just don't go asking me to add Elvis, ha ha. For, although "The King" (??!!) was/is an undeniably "popular" singer/performer, he was scarcely a timelessly great musician, much less a composer! But, hey, at least Presley himself was blithely cognizant of reality, as he once quipped, "I don't know anything about music. In my [or MJ's?] line you don't have to." ;-)
|
Jul 17 '09
9:54 am PDT
|
|
well said... (Reply to this comment)
by doglover
I would add Bruce Springsteen to your list, or at least the members of his band.
|
Jul 17 '09
8:48 am PDT
|
|
Re: King of Pop Videos (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Ed, I'm glad that you said:
"I would credit MJ with being the King of Pop Videos, and a very talented natural dancer, but very little else."
Not only do I agree with all aspects of your above remark, but it gives me a chance to say something that I only indirectly indicated below, namely, that to bestow the title "The King of Pop" on MJ (not only "in his heyday" but also "posthumously") is virtually as nonsensical as to say "he will forever be remembered as one of the greatest musicians of all time."
Why (I rhetorically ask) should MJ "now and forevermore" be christened (in the context of popular music) "The King of Pop"? Why not, instead, John Lennon? Or why not Beethoven--or Mozart? As, I believe, Paul McCartney once casually opined (during, I think, one of The Beatles' earliest sojourns on these shores), "All 'pop' music is [i.e., eventually becomes] 'classical' music." [Note: I'm paraphrasing McCartney's original words. And maybe it was actually Lennon who said it; nonetheless, the basic point still stands.]
Heck, it's bad enough that Elvis Presley is often referred to as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King." Let's face it: despite Presley's unarguable popularity (not least as a "performer") in his heyday and his significance in the early history of "rock 'n' roll" (encompassing "rockabilly"), it would be illogical to maintain that Elvis was/is as great a "musician"--much less a composer!--as various other names [not least Lennon & McCartney, who, whatever their relative limitations as "performers" per se, weren't exactly chopped liver on stage in the sixties], a few of whom are on the italicized list at the end of my piece. Hey, just because I (more or less) "grew up" during Elvis' heyday doesn't mean that I would ever ludicrously inflate his intrinsic "musicianship" the way that many (usually younger) folks have done for the redoubtable MJ. ;-)
Ed, your commendable second and third paragraphs (in your below comment) speak for themselves so incisively that I can only applaud and suggest that everybody else (especially “colluders in the Michael Jackson delusion”) reread them point-by-point before idolizing him excessively.
As for Joni Mitchell, I must admit that when I was originally hastily pecking out my "names list" (sort of as an afterthought to the original draft of my piece!), Mitchell simply didn't pop into my noggin, despite the fact that I've always relished the song "Both Sides Now," especially Joni's own '69 rendition of it (nothing against Judy Collins!). Tell ya what, Ed, since my list does indeed appear "somewhat female-challenged" (for which I've already profusely apologized in a below comment, ha ha), I'll just go ahead and add Joni to the lot.
I hope this pleases you, Ed; in any case, you can color me pleased with your well expressed, spot on comment. (Thanks!)
Mike
|
Jul 13 '09
12:54 pm PDT
|
|
King of Pop Videos (Reply to this comment)
by WulfsDen
I would credit MJ with being the King of Pop Videos, and a very talented natural dancer, but very little else. Worthy of note, certainly, but hardly deserving of the adoration the media wish to bestow upon him in death.
Apparently forgotten is his self-loathing for both his appearance and his race, his massive unpaid debts and his recent grifter mentality. I refer, of course, to his habitual cheating of many hard working tradesmen out of their due. Also let us not forget that he was a hard core drug addict, and most probably a serial pedophile, who, if not for his money and his friends, would still be alive in a jail cell somewhere.
Perhaps we should not deify him yet. If we are going to raise self destructive drug addicts to sainthood, I would prefer we start with Hendrix and Joplin.
BTW. Is there some special reason that Joni Mitchell did not rank as a performer and song writer in a somewhat female-challenged list?
Ed
|
Jul 13 '09
8:09 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: I think they killed him... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
"Honestly, I was just BS'ing."
Obviously, I, too, was intermittently unserious throughout my below reply. :-)
Indeed we'll both be reading every opportunistic book by/about the unfailingly profound Palin... not! :-)
|
Jul 10 '09
7:25 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: I think they killed him... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Mike,
Honestly, I was just BS'ing. Yet my website "web.de" reported this morning as their top story (MJ has been top story for over a week):
"Was MJ murdered?"
See? I have been around long enough to know how the world runs. Mystery solved.
Now what really bothers me is: why did Sarah Palin resign? Her daughter's Bristol former fiance' just held a press conference on this theme. Impressive. I hear he is working on his book deal and a movie. Impressive young man, so young yet so successful. Can't wait to read the memoirs of his two months at the Palin mansion!
Cheers
Vic
|
Jul 10 '09
4:51 am PDT
|
|
Re: I think they killed him... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
"Vic", you've unexpectedly jolted this humble comments thread onto a "whole 'nuther level" of MJ controversy, what with your ambiguous take on theoretical “inner-circle” conspiracies and your speaking straightforwardly on the "apotheosis of MJ" theme that yours truly slightly obliquely already broached below.
”… German newspapers say he was an angel from Heaven, and no other artist will ever equal him.”
Hmm. Sounds vaguely like an outdated propaganda machine’s allusion to a certain one-time starving painter. Well, they could hardly do worse worshipping a deceased dancer. ;-)
” Are we nuts?”
Any sentient alien monitoring our recent newscasts would likely think so! ;-)
”… they will talk about his rise to Heaven after three days in the grave.”
And foolish Lennon supposed THE BEATLES were “more popular than Jesus”! ;-)
”… even the House almost passed a resolution to honor him (thanks, Nancy Pelosi!).”
Moreover, at least one astronomically profitable U.S. postage stamp is in the offing. [I can’t even imagine how many international counterparts will likewise be printed.] Just as there have been “Elvis” stamps depicting both his “early” and his “Liberace” looks, perchance 21st-century snail-mail envelopes will be graced with both “early” and “transmogrified” MJ visages? [And methinks his visage(s) should likewise appear on coined and printed money. Imagine his (or should I write "His"?) beneficiaries’ pockets lined with just such currency.] ;-)
” The Pope will make him a saint…”
Don’t laugh. That could engender untold converts. [I can only imagine the stained glass of futurity!] ;-)
Hmm. Ya know, Vic, there just might be something to your “conspiracy theory”! ;-)
Mike
|
Jul 09 '09
6:51 pm PDT
|
|
I think they killed him... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
It is my nasty theory. Because MJ is worth more dead than alive. He was declining fast and would not be a cash cow anymore, plus his spending habits were ludicrous.
By dying early, he has become God. Even German newspapers say he was an angel from Heaven, and no other artist will ever equal him. Are we nuts? I am sure they will talk about his rise to Heaven after three days in the grave. His stuff sells as never before, you can hear him on the radio all day long, and even the House almost passed a resolution to honor him (thanks, Nancy Pelosi!). The Pope will make him a saint... they will sell his memorabilia, his image, his biographies.
I am telling you, they killed him...The worst thing about pop stars are the people/leeches surrounding them!
Vic
|
Jul 09 '09
3:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: So True (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Stella, naturally I'm pleased that you agree!
Thanks very much for stopping by and reading/rating/commenting, and have yourself a wonderful week/weekend! :-)
Mike
|
Jul 08 '09
7:19 pm PDT
|
|
Re: If we're gonna list singers/composers..... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Alex, heck, I never mind being called "Henry"... except in my "real" (off-line) life, heh.
Your below comment, IMO, is one of the mostly succinctly well-written and insightful in this thread. [Thank you! But, hey, pal, why didn't you also rate my piece?] ;-)
In hindsight, perhaps in my piece I should indeed have likewise broached the arguably insidious "disco-beat" factor (right along with the "video" factor). Anyway, I'm grateful that YOU mentioned it, although I'm not entirely convinced that that particular factor has caused quite so much damage (to popular music's "melodic/lyrical complexity/brilliance") as has the still more insidious "video" factor.
In this vein I think it should also be noted that rap "music" (an ultimately largely disappointing genre for which I myself had had some tentatively high hopes during its nascent years) collectively has seriously undermined "melodic (if not lyrical) complexity/brilliance" in popular music generally. Now, I wouldn’t particularly object to an “innocuous coexistence” of, er, a "melodically simplistic" pop “music” genre vis-a-vis "real" ("melodically advanced") music; but what I do basically disdain is the seeming pervasiveness (via the mass media) of “mostly spoken, not sung” “music” in the pop-music sphere nowadays; I object primarily because it (“rap”) has--let's face it--significantly contributed to the decline of truly "melodically complex/brilliant/beautiful" pop music. (That's annoyingly evident whenever any reasonably “aesthetically sophisticated” TV watcher of a certain age contrasts the prevailing "musical" (mostly merely spoken!) acts on "today's" late-night-TV "talk" (!) shows with what formerly constituted the analogous interludes on such TV shows back in the sixties and seventies.) [Rather than "rap," give me the best of the timelessly great Otis Redding or Ray Charles any ol' day! (Incidentally, I wonder how the latter musician--not to mention Stevie Wonder--privately felt about the advent of music videos!)]
Alex, not only were you admirably perceptive with your above-cited remarks, but also your observation that "the way music is now marketed ... has had a rather nasty effect on pop music and the way it's perceived" was absolutely spot on!
Thanks again for your input, Alex!
Mike
P.S.: Thanks, too, for mentioning Billy Joel, whom, in retrospect, I perhaps should've included on my "names list" from the get-go. [I'll soon (albeit somewhat hesitantly) rectify that minor omission. (Hmm, at this rate, somebody’s gonna show up and compel me to include the arguably timeless "musical greatness” of, say, John Denver--or even Barry Manilow! "Please! Make it stop!" Heh.)] ;-)
|
Jul 08 '09
2:39 pm PDT
|
|
So True (Reply to this comment)
by vmadwop1
I agree with you on your review. My thoughts are he was on of the most popular icons but I like others, who read this review can not say he is a timelessly great musician. We have many great musicians who their works remain each year.
|
Jul 08 '09
12:07 pm PDT
|
|
If we're gonna list singers/composers..... (Reply to this comment)
by alexdg1
Mike, (I almost called you Henry....)
First, let me say that I agree with your entire essay and its underlying theme that while Michael Jackson was fairly talented and a remarkable pop icon, he doesn't deserve the sobriquet of the world's greatest musical talent. Not of all time, and certainly not in his own lifetime.
The fact that popular music has devolved from melody-driven songs to beat-heavy dance music with no really powerful lyrics can be traced not just to the "revolution" of music videos but to the emergence of the equally dismal disco sub-genre of pop music. Sure, there may have been some outstanding disco songs and even some interesting videos, but the whole-sizzle-without-substance thing that has spawned such "talents" as Britney Spears and Cristina Aguilera really eclipsed the more nuanced and more creative artistry of Carly Simon and Billy Joel, who may now be bald and bearded but has more true musical talent and longevity than any of today's "superstars."
Unfortunately, the way music is now marketed and the emphasis on looks and sex appeal has had a rather nasty effect on pop music and the way it's perceived.
|
Jul 08 '09
11:55 am PDT
|
|
Re: Hey! (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Mike, although I myself sometimes declare that Handel is my own "personal favorite," the truth is that I strongly like virtually all of the noteworthy "classical" composers. (Whichever "classical" composer I happen to be listening to at the present moment is "the best"!) ;-) And, although some musicologists rank J.S. Bach very slightly higher than Mozart, I myself would never dream of disputing your assertion that the latter is the greatest. Indeed, Mozart timelessly "rocks"! :-)
Incidentally, I recently finished listening to an exceptionally enjoyable "audio book" (a four-CD set): Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Life and Works by Jeremy Siepmann (ISBN: 1843790513). If your local public library doesn't already have it, you can request it (as I did) via "interlibrary loan." It's absolutely the "most entertaining" audio biography on Mozart that I've yet heard. It includes intermittent musical selections midst Siepmann's superb narration plus various actors' renditions of this or that personage. [I've still more recently moved on to Siepmann's other audiobooks in that same series, including "the lives and works of" Beethoven; Haydn; Chopin; Dvorak; Liszt; Tchaikovsky; Verdi; Schubert; and, not least, J.S. Bach.]
Thanks for your comment!
Mike
|
Jul 07 '09
9:46 am PDT
|
|
Hey! (Reply to this comment)
by shoehorny
Undisputably, the greatest musician of all time is Wolfgang A. Mozart! He rocked! Look at how long his music lasts! I wonder if a couple of hundred years from now people will play Thriller? or Beat It? Great review!
Thanks!
Mike
|
Jul 07 '09
6:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: While I agree with everything you said.... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
As Pete Townshend wrote,
"Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss." ;-)
But seriously, I, for my part, have no crystal ball, and I admittedly (and unapologetically) am pleased to remain chiefly aloof to politics [though the inherently flawed U.S. "health care" system does presently disgruntle me!] and just tend my personal (hence generally harmonious) garden while hoping for the best in the larger world that's mostly beyond my control. (Thank goodness I can still actually get away with such unabashed aloofness!)
Anyhow, find contentment wherever and whenever you can, T.
Mike
|
Jul 05 '09
12:00 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: While I agree with everything you said.... (Reply to this comment)
by virtuelle2
Nope, by God, it's not got sh*t to do with HRC anymore at this point - it's everything to do with the so-called 'Democrats' and 'liberals' pushing forth a fraudulent candidate in the form of BH0 who, as we see now, is just as beholden to the same powers as the previous president. It also has to do with pervasive cheating -fully documented and witnessed - in the caucuses, stolen delegates in the primaries (with the aid of Dem leadership), Kool-Aid-drunken Obots who literally saw BH0 as the next Messiah, and were as obnoxious as hell online and offline. I could go into further nauseating detail, but I'll leave it at that. The Dems/libs are fully capable of the same hate (witness the piling on on Palin for her resignation, and everything else during the campaign) and political cheating that the Repubs did all these past years. I say, a pox on both their houses. US politics and politicians are a rotten lot - but some are just as rotten as the others but just put on a mask to fool some of the people.
As you can see, my outrage has not abated - so I pursue other things now, all have nothing to do with politix or politicians here. Not another thin dime from me for any of the lot.
T.
|
Jul 04 '09
9:56 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: While I agree with everything you said.... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
"Don't you think that the adoration and glorification of all things Kennedy, and all things celebrity, are an attempt to create an American (US, that is) royal class here?"
T., speaking even as one who (back in the sixties) was more than favorably impressed with the Kennedys [as a kid I trustingly admired John, and in spring 1968 I repeatedly, gleefully, and optimistically shook the campaigning Bobby’s hand at Allen Field House in Lawrence, KS (my being a young punk at the time evidently persuaded his stern-faced protectors to tolerate my physical proximity to him midst a slowly moving throng of wildly enthusiastic college students—which made for one of the most memorable events of my life)], I think that posthumous exposure of John’s and Bobby’s (not to mention other Kennedys’) "personal" foibles--not to mention the evident reasons for Jackie's second marriage, etc.--effectively debunked the myth that "Camelot" had ever actually existed on these shores (if anywhere).
I think that during much of the nineties a not-so-gilded species of (pro-Clinton) national enthusiasm (buoyed by an increasingly euphoric stock market) seemed vaguely reminiscent of the national climate that had prevailed during John Kennedy's administration; but, of course, Bill prematurely discredited his rather widely perceived positive image by solemnly looking the American public in the proverbial eye and straight-facedly lying (ironically about yet another manifestation of the foible that had long been more or less evident and “overlooked” (i.e., casually and/or “philosophically” tolerated by most of the American public). [Moral: Libido (especially in the modern-day political realm) can eventually become a powerful and self-destructive force, as the recent story of Mark Sanford likewise illustrates.]
T., your sundry other points [though they’re more or less supplementary to my piece’s overriding point (about NBC’s assessment of MJ’s musicianship’s historical rank)], are undeniably intriguing, and I agree with most, though perhaps not all, of them. For example, when you wrote:
"…the last one being one of the most egregious, to my mind….",
T., I wonder if you've let your evident disappointment involving Hillary’s failure to become president unduly influence your assessment of the most recent presidential election’s relative “egregiousness” (in the sense that you apparently meant). In other words, to put it mildly [especially given that I myself voted "for Obama" (or, more particularly, "against any seeming version of George W. Bush")], I personally see no particular reason to deem that most recent election any more “egregious” than numerous other such elections that preceded it. But, hopefully, you and I can amiably agree to disagree on that particular point, especially given that we do largely agree on virtually all of the more fundamental points that you made, T. ;-)
Whew! When I initially posted my piece, I never imagined that so many “ancillary” points would get broached in this concomitant thread. Nevertheless, I thank you (and everybody) for all of your admirably thought-provoking input!
Mike
|
Jul 04 '09
11:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: While I agree with everything you said.... (Reply to this comment)
by virtuelle2
Jun 27 '09
8:22 am PDT
Re: Re: Re: While I agree with everything you said.... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
Talyseon, I didn't seriously suspect that you were advocating undue censorship. ;-) And, since YOU bring it up, I don't mind saying that--during that recent/current media circus--the “Princess-Di-death aftermath/frenzy” had indeed crossed my mind, too. Incidentally, I, too, would probably ruffle some Brit feathers if I were to mention how consummately SILLY the entire "Royals" institution/circus has always seemed to my sensibilities (even from my childhood). [In this vein, I seem to recall a late eighties/early nineties Rolling Stone (?) interview of Elvis Costello (a Brit himself), who unhesitatingly opined (I paraphrase), "All those bums ought to be kicked out and forced to get a job!" But I digress (although YOU started it, ha ha.). ;-)]
< snip >
Jun 27 '09
8:21 am PDT
I'd leave the British royalty to the Brits - who, Costello's remarks notwithstanding, are still immensely popular amongst their 'subjects'. With the celebrity obsession these days, if royalty did not exist in some places still, they'd have to be invented.
Don't you think that the adoration and glorification of all things Kennedy, and all things celebrity, are an attempt to create an American (US, that is) royal class here? And just the same as the adulation throngs of people need to bestow on someone, anyone - whom they can simultaneously adore and resent, and on whom they can discharge their own frustrations and foibles when said celebrities/royalty stumble with all-too-human weaknesses?
I blame most of all the heavily controlled and homogeneous mainstream mass media today, who continue to feed us with these shallow stories of no clear import - while completely and dutifully ignoring the truths behind the economic/financial disaster befalling us, the 'war on terra', the sham political exercise that occurs every four years (the last one being one of the most egregious, to my mind), the nonsense of having two political parties of scant difference (all in the same deep pockets of those who really control the levers of power), etc. etc. All to keep the great masses diverted and in ignorance about what is REALLY happening behind the scenes in the corridors of power.
Kudos to vicfar's perceptive comment, per usual.
T./v2
|
Jul 04 '09
8:54 am PDT
|
|
Re: I'll tell you something - (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
George, I myself know relatively little about Fidrych, but I thank you--not only for injecting that supplementary point but also for your memorably laconic reaction (further below) to NBC's assessment of MJ's musicianship's historical rank. ;-)
Mike
|
Jul 04 '09
8:48 am PDT
|
|
I'll tell you something - (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot
Just stopping by again - I don't watch much TV but I was in Michigan the other day and of course they had Tiger baseball on.
With all this talk of dead people, Mark Fidrych - The Bird - (1954 -2009) was arguably more worthy of praise than Mike Jackson. There was a big special on him showing his 1976 career with the Tigers where he won MVP and the Cy Young award. He showed a guy could make it on his own merits - such as they were. Just thought I'd leave this discussion with something positive. Can't think of anything good to say about the other one and will follow my mother's good advice. ;>
|
Jul 04 '09
6:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: Relax... (Reply to this comment)
by henry_thoreau
"Relax"? Presumably that is what MJ himself has at last been fully enabled to do.
"MJ was a source of minor irritation for me, because I don't care about his weird personal life, but the media were in a constant frenzy and WE ALL had to hear about it."
You and I are "in sync" on all counts there!
"I did not like his music and his style (I agree with you with your analysis of the video culture), but to me he represented basically the stereotype of the "artificially built" pop icon that we are destined to see again and again."
In one pessimistic corner of my mind, I can (almost) imagine that, centuries hence, respected musicologists actually will be so inordinately impressed with certain "cosmetic" and "sociological" ramifications of MJ's output that they'll inflate him into something more than a footnote. [Imagine conventional "musicology" hereafter being supplanted by "music-videology"!] If that should indeed turn out to be the case, then future “academics” might just as well analogously consecrate such icons as Elvis Presley [whose legacy MJ had already intentionally linked to his own by means of a "marriage"], Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and Princess Di.
"Instead of mourning MJ, we should analyze the way we build young stars and 'consume' them. It should be an occasion to explore the most pathological aspects of modern American culture."
Well, now, it could be argued that "masses of ordinarily rational individuals compliantly partaking in the ritualistic 'consumption' of the adapted object of their veneration" was actually instituted millennia ago in "your" neck of the woods, Vic. ;-)
Anyway, "thank you very much" for your admirable perceptiveness here!
|
Jul 03 '09
12:28 pm PDT
|
|
Relax... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
I won't give you a list of artists who are greater than MJ and you forgot to mention. It would be too long. I had the same reaction as you had. MJ was a source of minor irritation for me, because I don't care about his weird personal life, but the media were in a constant frenzy and WE ALL had to hear about it.
Now that he's gone, his music is all over the radio, his memorabilia are skyrocketing in value, the vultures are fighting for his estate (whatever is left after his lawyers took their share), and his entourage will forever accuse one another of having killed him...I did not like his music and his style (I agree with you with your analysis of the video culture), but to me he represented basically the stereotype of the "artificially built" pop icon that we are destined to see again and again.
As he lay in the coffin, there were millions of young people all over the world standing in line and hoping to be the "discovered" as the next MJ. Millions of idiots wanting to be "successful"...on the road to self destruction.
Instead of mourning MJ, we should analyze the way we build young stars and "consume" them. It should be an occasion to explore the most pathological aspects of modern American culture.
Vic
|
Jul 03 '09
8:44 am PDT
|
|
|
|
