mike hunt
That's something that I always wondered about, what did he write?....if he wrote most of his songs than more power to him.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
mike hunt
yea, but now they all love him. That's another thing that makes me mad. The media killed this guy, They called him every name in the book. Pervert, freak, wacko, but now he's the most loved figure since elvis. Phonies I tell you. This thread is more about the media than michael.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
yea, but now they all love him. That's another thing that makes me mad. The media killed this guy, They called him every name in the book. Pervert, freak, wacko, but now he's the most loved figure since elvis. Phonies I tell you. This threat is more about the media than michael.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree... the flip-flop nature of the media is more than transparent.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
yea, but now they all love him. That's another thing that makes me mad. The media killed this guy, They called him every name in the book. Pervert, freak, wacko, but now he's the most loved figure since elvis. Phonies I tell you. This threat is more about the media than michael.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree... the flip-flop nature of the media is more than transparent.
Holly2003
Michael Jackson was , of course, a shrinking violet who never used the media to promote his cds or concerts. He also didn't use the media when, in a dispute with his record company, he played the race card, nor when he falsely claimed police brutality (only to fold faster than Superman on laundry day when it turned out there was cctv footage disproving his claims). His family have also never sought media attention, not even when apperaing on reality tv shows, or in playboy, or when having a wardrobe malfucntion during a show which drew America's biggest TV audience. And of course there was no media attention sought when they held a live, televised memorial service. [img=/images/smiley/msn/wink_smile.gif][/img]
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]female hormones until age 16[/QUOTE]
Why would he do that to himself?[/QUOTE]
He was still a kid then... it was his father who took care of that, to keep MJ's voice up high for as long as possible.
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
You're giving him waaaay too much credit. He wasn't Bad (pun intended), but he certainly wasn't the messianic figure you're currently portraying him to be. Just look at it like this: in five years, will you still stand by what you wrote now? As an historian, I doubt it. It's still very close to the time of his death now, and so the appropriate distance to cast any useful judgement on his life and career is lacking. Emotions are still overtaking reason.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Time will tell. But I don't see anything I wrote as being emotionally triggered. Everything I said was a fact (and not a Treasure Moment "FACT").
Ask the average middle-aged person from any territory that was dominated by disco how many records they bought between 1978 and 1981. Then ask them if they bought Thriller. Then ask them what song made them at least curious to hear what CD audio sounded like. You'd be surprised how many people will say "that intro of Billie Jean".
As for his personal life... popular culture hasn't come out to destroy someone in such a grand style since Marilyn Monroe. But there was no excuse this time, as we had decades to learn from that, and we didn't.
[/QUOTE]
You're right as to his popularity, and I am also inclined to agree with your implicit definition of MJ as a true artist, but when in 25 years schoolbooks/history books discuss the music of the 1980s, MJ will likely be cited as a cultural icon, not as a musical innovator. He was indeed an important presence in the charts, and he went on to influence chart-based pop for at least another decade, but I do doubt that his influence will be lasting, especially considering how his music was more of a synthesis of previous innovations rather than entirely new in itself.
Time, and only time, will tell.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]female hormones until age 16[/QUOTE]
Why would he do that to himself?[/QUOTE]
He was still a kid then... it was his father who took care of that, to keep MJ's voice up high for as long as possible.
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
You're giving him waaaay too much credit. He wasn't Bad (pun intended), but he certainly wasn't the messianic figure you're currently portraying him to be. Just look at it like this: in five years, will you still stand by what you wrote now? As an historian, I doubt it. It's still very close to the time of his death now, and so the appropriate distance to cast any useful judgement on his life and career is lacking. Emotions are still overtaking reason.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Time will tell. But I don't see anything I wrote as being emotionally triggered. Everything I said was a fact (and not a Treasure Moment "FACT").
Ask the average middle-aged person from any territory that was dominated by disco how many records they bought between 1978 and 1981. Then ask them if they bought Thriller. Then ask them what song made them at least curious to hear what CD audio sounded like. You'd be surprised how many people will say "that intro of Billie Jean".
As for his personal life... popular culture hasn't come out to destroy someone in such a grand style since Marilyn Monroe. But there was no excuse this time, as we had decades to learn from that, and we didn't.
[/QUOTE]
You're right as to his popularity, and I am also inclined to agree with your implicit definition of MJ as a true artist, but when in 25 years schoolbooks/history books discuss the music of the 1980s, MJ will likely be cited as a cultural icon, not as a musical innovator. He was indeed an important presence in the charts, and he went on to influence chart-based pop for at least another decade, but I do doubt that his influence will be lasting, especially considering how his music was more of a synthesis of previous innovations rather than entirely new in itself.
Time, and only time, will tell.
Sebastian
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Let's not forget that, unlike most pop stars, MJ wrote most of his songs.
[/QUOTE]
About that, Michael did comment on 'Moonwalk' that he felt sad about people overlooking, ignoring or simply not believing that side of him. He would work his arse off to write a great melody, a great percussion part of a great choir arrangement only for people to ask him 'who [i]really [/i]wrote that?'.
It's a bit similar to what happens to Freddie - many people think of him as a showman, frontman and entertainer who sang really well but that was it, and don't picture him sitting at the piano composing wonderful material -, but even more extreme.
The thing is: when a doctor dies, for instance, his/her patients, friends, family and co-workers mourn him/her for a while, and focus on his/her life, etc. If I died today, I bet my daughter, my brother, my close friends and perhaps even a couple of people on this forum would be talking about me or what I did (both right and wrong) for a couple of weeks. Michael's case is the same, only that his (symbolic) relatives are scores of millions and the amount of people he's touched tops what most of those doctors and firefighters have. Fair? Perhaps not. But that's the way it is: from street kids trying to moonwalk (been there, done that) to people re-arranging their timetable to attend the O2 gigs or at least (if they weren't in London) watch them via YT as soon as they were uploaded (again, BTDT).
With Michael, everything was a surprise: his collaboration with Slash, his ridiculous bizarre dangerous 'kid off the window' moment, his announcements, his trial (well, sort of...), and of course, his death, totally unexpected. I admit I'm having a very hard time with it, I even forced myself to avoid any contact with news for the last couple of days and in his funeral I filled myself with work. That night loads of friends and relatives were phoning me to ask about my opinion on Shaheen's performance (they do know I'm a big fan since BGT), but I kept myself from watching that because it'd be too hard for me.
And why? I've always admired MJ, but I was never a person who had all his records or watched all his concerts... and I admired Dan Fogelberg, Michael Kamen, George Harrison and Luciano Pavarotti a hell of a lot more, but none of their deaths got to me that way. Perhaps it's the surprise factor: with all of them I'd seen it coming for a while; with Michael, I was literally talking about him (and the fact I'd loaned 'Moonwalk' to a friend and she hadn't returned it) and ten minutes later TMZ'd broken the news. Still can't get over it... and that's me, imagine how a fan would be feeling...
Now, about the press - that's a different story. Of course, many of them are vultures. They won't have another story like this one at least until Paul McCartney kicks it... again (is that what [i]Not a Second Time[/i] was really about?). And even then there's still a difference, as my brother said: Paul McCartney is 'Paul McCartney from The Beatles'. Michael Jackson was not 'Michael Jackson from the Jacksons', he was 'Michael Jackson', full stop. And of course, it's the first time Michael dies...
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Let's not forget that, unlike most pop stars, MJ wrote most of his songs.
[/QUOTE]
About that, Michael did comment on 'Moonwalk' that he felt sad about people overlooking, ignoring or simply not believing that side of him. He would work his arse off to write a great melody, a great percussion part of a great choir arrangement only for people to ask him 'who [i]really [/i]wrote that?'.
It's a bit similar to what happens to Freddie - many people think of him as a showman, frontman and entertainer who sang really well but that was it, and don't picture him sitting at the piano composing wonderful material -, but even more extreme.
The thing is: when a doctor dies, for instance, his/her patients, friends, family and co-workers mourn him/her for a while, and focus on his/her life, etc. If I died today, I bet my daughter, my brother, my close friends and perhaps even a couple of people on this forum would be talking about me or what I did (both right and wrong) for a couple of weeks. Michael's case is the same, only that his (symbolic) relatives are scores of millions and the amount of people he's touched tops what most of those doctors and firefighters have. Fair? Perhaps not. But that's the way it is: from street kids trying to moonwalk (been there, done that) to people re-arranging their timetable to attend the O2 gigs or at least (if they weren't in London) watch them via YT as soon as they were uploaded (again, BTDT).
With Michael, everything was a surprise: his collaboration with Slash, his ridiculous bizarre dangerous 'kid off the window' moment, his announcements, his trial (well, sort of...), and of course, his death, totally unexpected. I admit I'm having a very hard time with it, I even forced myself to avoid any contact with news for the last couple of days and in his funeral I filled myself with work. That night loads of friends and relatives were phoning me to ask about my opinion on Shaheen's performance (they do know I'm a big fan since BGT), but I kept myself from watching that because it'd be too hard for me.
And why? I've always admired MJ, but I was never a person who had all his records or watched all his concerts... and I admired Dan Fogelberg, Michael Kamen, George Harrison and Luciano Pavarotti a hell of a lot more, but none of their deaths got to me that way. Perhaps it's the surprise factor: with all of them I'd seen it coming for a while; with Michael, I was literally talking about him (and the fact I'd loaned 'Moonwalk' to a friend and she hadn't returned it) and ten minutes later TMZ'd broken the news. Still can't get over it... and that's me, imagine how a fan would be feeling...
Now, about the press - that's a different story. Of course, many of them are vultures. They won't have another story like this one at least until Paul McCartney kicks it... again (is that what [i]Not a Second Time[/i] was really about?). And even then there's still a difference, as my brother said: Paul McCartney is 'Paul McCartney from The Beatles'. Michael Jackson was not 'Michael Jackson from the Jacksons', he was 'Michael Jackson', full stop. And of course, it's the first time Michael dies...
The Real Wizard
Great post.
SaskQueenFan
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
It makes me sad to see how society gets sucked into this crap.
[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is a bit overblown. But Michael Jackson, like him or not, is one of the most famous people ever to have lived, and with good reason:
- he was this and last generation's Elvis
- he broke colour barriers on MTV and elsewhere
- after disco estranged people from record shops, Thriller brought them back
- Thriller was the beginning of wide interest in the compact disc
- the money he gave to charity was approximately his debt when he died
- he inspired people to simply love
"There's nothing that can't be done if we raise our voice as one." -- Michael Jackson
But unfortunately... most of those things don't make headlines in 2009. It's the average person's own fault that they don't bother to take a moment to have some empathy for what the guy had been through - child star at age 5, father's beatings, and female hormones until age 16, for starters.
[QUOTE]if he didn't molest those kids[/QUOTE]
We need to leave that alone too. The mere mention of that just contributes to the problem that we listen to what tabloid culture feeds us, all in the interest of money at someone's expense. So the question is, will we as a society learn from this, or will the next big star continue to get attacked by the tabloids and the average person, restarting the cycle of societal abuse yet again?
[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, Sir GH, is that the $10 million settlement in the first molestation case makes MJ look very guilty. If he was innocent, why settle the case out of court? You do have to admit, sleeping with kids in the same bed is a very poor choice by Jackson. It may have been innocent, like a slumber party, but for a grown adult to sleep with kids that are not his own looks very suspicious, and many, rightfully so, looked at him in a very different light. In many ways he was childlike, but he made many business decisions, like buying the Beatles catalogue-- selling the songs to companies for use in advertising was very lucrative. I don't buy the innocent routine, not when he was making those kind of shrewd decisions.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
It makes me sad to see how society gets sucked into this crap.
[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is a bit overblown. But Michael Jackson, like him or not, is one of the most famous people ever to have lived, and with good reason:
- he was this and last generation's Elvis
- he broke colour barriers on MTV and elsewhere
- after disco estranged people from record shops, Thriller brought them back
- Thriller was the beginning of wide interest in the compact disc
- the money he gave to charity was approximately his debt when he died
- he inspired people to simply love
"There's nothing that can't be done if we raise our voice as one." -- Michael Jackson
But unfortunately... most of those things don't make headlines in 2009. It's the average person's own fault that they don't bother to take a moment to have some empathy for what the guy had been through - child star at age 5, father's beatings, and female hormones until age 16, for starters.
[QUOTE]if he didn't molest those kids[/QUOTE]
We need to leave that alone too. The mere mention of that just contributes to the problem that we listen to what tabloid culture feeds us, all in the interest of money at someone's expense. So the question is, will we as a society learn from this, or will the next big star continue to get attacked by the tabloids and the average person, restarting the cycle of societal abuse yet again?
[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, Sir GH, is that the $10 million settlement in the first molestation case makes MJ look very guilty. If he was innocent, why settle the case out of court? You do have to admit, sleeping with kids in the same bed is a very poor choice by Jackson. It may have been innocent, like a slumber party, but for a grown adult to sleep with kids that are not his own looks very suspicious, and many, rightfully so, looked at him in a very different light. In many ways he was childlike, but he made many business decisions, like buying the Beatles catalogue-- selling the songs to companies for use in advertising was very lucrative. I don't buy the innocent routine, not when he was making those kind of shrewd decisions.
Sebastian
Have you seen the 'Big Bang Theory', in that episode that Sheldon's trying to make friends and ends up talking with a young girl, and then Leonard withdraws him before her parents or a copper get there? In that case, Sheldon's intentions are nowhere near molestation or abuse, he's just too clueless about social conventions and prejudices that he sees no harm in befriending a girl and (if I remember correctly) telling her to 'watch monkeys together' (which of course didn't have a filthy meaning to him).
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Leonard didn't show up, and the kid told her parents she was going to the zoo with her friend Sheldon (they granted permisson assuming he'd be a ten year old), and after the visit they ended up in his flat. She gets exhausted and falls asleep in his bed and Sheldon, OCD as he is, lies on the same bed because he's used to it. There'd be absolutely no intention or even thought about having a sexual contact with the kid, but imagine her parents showed up and saw that... Indeed it would almost be a 'funny' episode if they did it that way, but of course it could never air on primetime as it could touch sensitive people (but why was that Mr Bean episode with the baby done anyway?).
Now, TV and real life are completely different, but I know for a fact that there are some Sheldon's (so to speak) out there... still childish enough not to develop strange or sick orientations and still innocent enough not to read anything gruesome in talking to a child or even sharing a bed. Of course, how can one tell the difference between a 'Sheldon' and a true paedophile? It's better to be safe than sorry... but, it doesn't mean all sorts of prejudice and assumptions are OK, IMO, because otherwise we're just halfway to fascism (for that matter, we should kill every person who tickles a kid's hair because they may be raping them while in private).
Back to Michael, I think there are way too many variables and guesswork... I, Sebastian, would've never given money being sure about my innocence - I'd wait for all evidence to be processed since I'd trust truth to come out eventually, but it doesn't mean MJ (or anybody else for that matter) would think and behave the same way. Likewise, we can't really know if there was any malice in his sharing a bed with children or if he was simply another kid and as such, had a child-like behaviour in every aspect... loads of infants, kids and even teenagers share bed with cousins, siblings or friends without having any sort of sexual involvement. When it comes to adults, it could be a 0.001% of them, but who says Michael wasn't part of that 0.001%? Who says he was? Can we really tell?
Was he a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing or simply a misunderstood 'wacko' whose perverted behaviour was only assumed by particularly suspicious media (pot-kettle) and believed by a gullible public? I suppose the truth about what happened or didn't happen died with him. Of course, there's the whole thing about his lyrics and his apparent obsession for mentioning 'children' a lot... but again that proves nothing. Should we accuse John Lennon and even Freddie Mercury of having an Oedipal fantasies? Should we accuse Roger Waters of zoophilia because of an album?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Leonard didn't show up, and the kid told her parents she was going to the zoo with her friend Sheldon (they granted permisson assuming he'd be a ten year old), and after the visit they ended up in his flat. She gets exhausted and falls asleep in his bed and Sheldon, OCD as he is, lies on the same bed because he's used to it. There'd be absolutely no intention or even thought about having a sexual contact with the kid, but imagine her parents showed up and saw that... Indeed it would almost be a 'funny' episode if they did it that way, but of course it could never air on primetime as it could touch sensitive people (but why was that Mr Bean episode with the baby done anyway?).
Now, TV and real life are completely different, but I know for a fact that there are some Sheldon's (so to speak) out there... still childish enough not to develop strange or sick orientations and still innocent enough not to read anything gruesome in talking to a child or even sharing a bed. Of course, how can one tell the difference between a 'Sheldon' and a true paedophile? It's better to be safe than sorry... but, it doesn't mean all sorts of prejudice and assumptions are OK, IMO, because otherwise we're just halfway to fascism (for that matter, we should kill every person who tickles a kid's hair because they may be raping them while in private).
Back to Michael, I think there are way too many variables and guesswork... I, Sebastian, would've never given money being sure about my innocence - I'd wait for all evidence to be processed since I'd trust truth to come out eventually, but it doesn't mean MJ (or anybody else for that matter) would think and behave the same way. Likewise, we can't really know if there was any malice in his sharing a bed with children or if he was simply another kid and as such, had a child-like behaviour in every aspect... loads of infants, kids and even teenagers share bed with cousins, siblings or friends without having any sort of sexual involvement. When it comes to adults, it could be a 0.001% of them, but who says Michael wasn't part of that 0.001%? Who says he was? Can we really tell?
Was he a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing or simply a misunderstood 'wacko' whose perverted behaviour was only assumed by particularly suspicious media (pot-kettle) and believed by a gullible public? I suppose the truth about what happened or didn't happen died with him. Of course, there's the whole thing about his lyrics and his apparent obsession for mentioning 'children' a lot... but again that proves nothing. Should we accuse John Lennon and even Freddie Mercury of having an Oedipal fantasies? Should we accuse Roger Waters of zoophilia because of an album?
mike hunt
[QUOTE]
[b]SaskQueenFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
It makes me sad to see how society gets sucked into this crap.
[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is a bit overblown. But Michael Jackson, like him or not, is one of the most famous people ever to have lived, and with good reason:
- he was this and last generation's Elvis
- he broke colour barriers on MTV and elsewhere
- after disco estranged people from record shops, Thriller brought them back
- Thriller was the beginning of wide interest in the compact disc
- the money he gave to charity was approximately his debt when he died
- he inspired people to simply love
"There's nothing that can't be done if we raise our voice as one." -- Michael Jackson
But unfortunately... most of those things don't make headlines in 2009. It's the average person's own fault that they don't bother to take a moment to have some empathy for what the guy had been through - child star at age 5, father's beatings, and female hormones until age 16, for starters.
[QUOTE]if he didn't molest those kids[/QUOTE]
We need to leave that alone too. The mere mention of that just contributes to the problem that we listen to what tabloid culture feeds us, all in the interest of money at someone's expense. So the question is, will we as a society learn from this, or will the next big star continue to get attacked by the tabloids and the average person, restarting the cycle of societal abuse yet again?
[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, Sir GH, is that the $10 million settlement in the first molestation case makes MJ look very guilty. If he was innocent, why settle the case out of court? You do have to admit, sleeping with kids in the same bed is a very poor choice by Jackson. It may have been innocent, like a slumber party, but for a grown adult to sleep with kids that are not his own looks very suspicious, and many, rightfully so, looked at him in a very different light. In many ways he was childlike, but he made many business decisions, like buying the Beatles catalogue-- selling the songs to companies for use in advertising was very lucrative. I don't buy the innocent routine, not when he was making those kind of shrewd decisions.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if he was guilty or innocent, but you can't just leave that alone and ignore such a horrible accusation like another poster said. I did see a interview with michael that said he wanted too be done with it, instead of going on a long trial. that's why he did the settlement thing..... In that interview he seemed sincere about his love for kids in an innocent sort of way, but again who really knows?...only the kid who accused him does, and of course michael. We all know he wasn't a saint like some are trying to make him out to be, but was he a monster?...Not in my opinion, but I also trust way too easy, and believe your innocent until proven guilty.
[b]SaskQueenFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
It makes me sad to see how society gets sucked into this crap.
[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is a bit overblown. But Michael Jackson, like him or not, is one of the most famous people ever to have lived, and with good reason:
- he was this and last generation's Elvis
- he broke colour barriers on MTV and elsewhere
- after disco estranged people from record shops, Thriller brought them back
- Thriller was the beginning of wide interest in the compact disc
- the money he gave to charity was approximately his debt when he died
- he inspired people to simply love
"There's nothing that can't be done if we raise our voice as one." -- Michael Jackson
But unfortunately... most of those things don't make headlines in 2009. It's the average person's own fault that they don't bother to take a moment to have some empathy for what the guy had been through - child star at age 5, father's beatings, and female hormones until age 16, for starters.
[QUOTE]if he didn't molest those kids[/QUOTE]
We need to leave that alone too. The mere mention of that just contributes to the problem that we listen to what tabloid culture feeds us, all in the interest of money at someone's expense. So the question is, will we as a society learn from this, or will the next big star continue to get attacked by the tabloids and the average person, restarting the cycle of societal abuse yet again?
[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, Sir GH, is that the $10 million settlement in the first molestation case makes MJ look very guilty. If he was innocent, why settle the case out of court? You do have to admit, sleeping with kids in the same bed is a very poor choice by Jackson. It may have been innocent, like a slumber party, but for a grown adult to sleep with kids that are not his own looks very suspicious, and many, rightfully so, looked at him in a very different light. In many ways he was childlike, but he made many business decisions, like buying the Beatles catalogue-- selling the songs to companies for use in advertising was very lucrative. I don't buy the innocent routine, not when he was making those kind of shrewd decisions.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know if he was guilty or innocent, but you can't just leave that alone and ignore such a horrible accusation like another poster said. I did see a interview with michael that said he wanted too be done with it, instead of going on a long trial. that's why he did the settlement thing..... In that interview he seemed sincere about his love for kids in an innocent sort of way, but again who really knows?...only the kid who accused him does, and of course michael. We all know he wasn't a saint like some are trying to make him out to be, but was he a monster?...Not in my opinion, but I also trust way too easy, and believe your innocent until proven guilty.
thomasquinn 32989
As for the whole guilty - not guilty thing...
It is customary in countries under rule of law that any inquiry into a suspect is dropped when that suspect dies. Shall we please just leave it at that, especially as he was not convicted in the first place?
It is customary in countries under rule of law that any inquiry into a suspect is dropped when that suspect dies. Shall we please just leave it at that, especially as he was not convicted in the first place?
Sebastian
I think people have the right to discuss it if they feel like it. Those who want to 'leave it at that' (me included) can simply refrain from that side of the thread, but we can't force others to drop it.
Crisstti
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote:
[/b]
About that, Michael did comment on 'Moonwalk' that he felt sad about people overlooking, ignoring or simply not believing that side of him. He would work his arse off to write a great melody, a great percussion part of a great choir arrangement only for people to ask him 'who [i]really [/i]wrote that?'.
It's a bit similar to what happens to Freddie - many people think of him as a showman, frontman and entertainer who sang really well but that was it, and don't picture him sitting at the piano composing wonderful material -, but even more extreme.
The thing is: when a doctor dies, for instance, his/her patients, friends, family and co-workers mourn him/her for a while, and focus on his/her life, etc. If I died today, I bet my daughter, my brother, my close friends and perhaps even a couple of people on this forum would be talking about me or what I did (both right and wrong) for a couple of weeks. Michael's case is the same, only that his (symbolic) relatives are scores of millions and the amount of people he's touched tops what most of those doctors and firefighters have. Fair? Perhaps not. But that's the way it is: from street kids trying to moonwalk (been there, done that) to people re-arranging their timetable to attend the O2 gigs or at least (if they weren't in London) watch them via YT as soon as they were uploaded (again, BTDT).
With Michael, everything was a surprise: his collaboration with Slash, his ridiculous bizarre dangerous 'kid off the window' moment, his announcements, his trial (well, sort of...), and of course, his death, totally unexpected. I admit I'm having a very hard time with it, I even forced myself to avoid any contact with news for the last couple of days and in his funeral I filled myself with work. That night loads of friends and relatives were phoning me to ask about my opinion on Shaheen's performance (they do know I'm a big fan since BGT), but I kept myself from watching that because it'd be too hard for me.
And why? I've always admired MJ, but I was never a person who had all his records or watched all his concerts... and I admired Dan Fogelberg, Michael Kamen, George Harrison and Luciano Pavarotti a hell of a lot more, but none of their deaths got to me that way. Perhaps it's the surprise factor: with all of them I'd seen it coming for a while; with Michael, I was literally talking about him (and the fact I'd loaned 'Moonwalk' to a friend and she hadn't returned it) and ten minutes later TMZ'd broken the news. Still can't get over it... and that's me, imagine how a fan would be feeling...
Now, about the press - that's a different story. Of course, many of them are vultures. They won't have another story like this one at least until Paul McCartney kicks it... again (is that what [i]Not a Second Time[/i] was really about?). And even then there's still a difference, as my brother said: Paul McCartney is 'Paul McCartney from The Beatles'. Michael Jackson was not 'Michael Jackson from the Jacksons', he was 'Michael Jackson', full stop. And of course, it's the first time Michael dies...
[/QUOTE]
Very good post.
About the the amount of coverage on Michael Jackson, and comparing it with the attention firefighters are given, I think people making that complaint overlook what you pointed out: lots, LOTS of people knew Michael to some degree, he had some influence in their lives, they were fond of him. That is just not the case with firefighters or anyone else. So it makes perfect sense for someone like Michael to get FAR more news coverage than a firefighter...
Also, with all the money that Michael gave to charity, he probably saved many lives.
I didn't consider myself a fan of Michael before he died. But I had always liked his songs, and seeing his Thriller video and my mom moonwalking to us are early memories of mine. And his death affected me far more than that of George Harrison, and I am a huge Beatles fan.
I guess the fact that Michael had been trashed so much, and not just by the press, but by many people, is something that maybe made many people feel kinda guilty or something?. I know I did, 'cause I had just kind of assumed he was guilty of the child abuse accusations without making any kind of research, and now having read about them, I think he was innocent.
As for Michael writing songs, I was reading yesterday in some website people saying that most of the songs that had Michael as the writer were actually written by Quincy Jones. I don't see how that can be true, as I read about Michael writing Don't stop till you get Enough and about Quincy Jones not liking Billy Jean. And after all, Michael only worked with him in two of his albums. Who are these people suggesting wrote the Michael Jackson songs on his other albums?.
[b]Sebastian wrote:
[/b]
About that, Michael did comment on 'Moonwalk' that he felt sad about people overlooking, ignoring or simply not believing that side of him. He would work his arse off to write a great melody, a great percussion part of a great choir arrangement only for people to ask him 'who [i]really [/i]wrote that?'.
It's a bit similar to what happens to Freddie - many people think of him as a showman, frontman and entertainer who sang really well but that was it, and don't picture him sitting at the piano composing wonderful material -, but even more extreme.
The thing is: when a doctor dies, for instance, his/her patients, friends, family and co-workers mourn him/her for a while, and focus on his/her life, etc. If I died today, I bet my daughter, my brother, my close friends and perhaps even a couple of people on this forum would be talking about me or what I did (both right and wrong) for a couple of weeks. Michael's case is the same, only that his (symbolic) relatives are scores of millions and the amount of people he's touched tops what most of those doctors and firefighters have. Fair? Perhaps not. But that's the way it is: from street kids trying to moonwalk (been there, done that) to people re-arranging their timetable to attend the O2 gigs or at least (if they weren't in London) watch them via YT as soon as they were uploaded (again, BTDT).
With Michael, everything was a surprise: his collaboration with Slash, his ridiculous bizarre dangerous 'kid off the window' moment, his announcements, his trial (well, sort of...), and of course, his death, totally unexpected. I admit I'm having a very hard time with it, I even forced myself to avoid any contact with news for the last couple of days and in his funeral I filled myself with work. That night loads of friends and relatives were phoning me to ask about my opinion on Shaheen's performance (they do know I'm a big fan since BGT), but I kept myself from watching that because it'd be too hard for me.
And why? I've always admired MJ, but I was never a person who had all his records or watched all his concerts... and I admired Dan Fogelberg, Michael Kamen, George Harrison and Luciano Pavarotti a hell of a lot more, but none of their deaths got to me that way. Perhaps it's the surprise factor: with all of them I'd seen it coming for a while; with Michael, I was literally talking about him (and the fact I'd loaned 'Moonwalk' to a friend and she hadn't returned it) and ten minutes later TMZ'd broken the news. Still can't get over it... and that's me, imagine how a fan would be feeling...
Now, about the press - that's a different story. Of course, many of them are vultures. They won't have another story like this one at least until Paul McCartney kicks it... again (is that what [i]Not a Second Time[/i] was really about?). And even then there's still a difference, as my brother said: Paul McCartney is 'Paul McCartney from The Beatles'. Michael Jackson was not 'Michael Jackson from the Jacksons', he was 'Michael Jackson', full stop. And of course, it's the first time Michael dies...
[/QUOTE]
Very good post.
About the the amount of coverage on Michael Jackson, and comparing it with the attention firefighters are given, I think people making that complaint overlook what you pointed out: lots, LOTS of people knew Michael to some degree, he had some influence in their lives, they were fond of him. That is just not the case with firefighters or anyone else. So it makes perfect sense for someone like Michael to get FAR more news coverage than a firefighter...
Also, with all the money that Michael gave to charity, he probably saved many lives.
I didn't consider myself a fan of Michael before he died. But I had always liked his songs, and seeing his Thriller video and my mom moonwalking to us are early memories of mine. And his death affected me far more than that of George Harrison, and I am a huge Beatles fan.
I guess the fact that Michael had been trashed so much, and not just by the press, but by many people, is something that maybe made many people feel kinda guilty or something?. I know I did, 'cause I had just kind of assumed he was guilty of the child abuse accusations without making any kind of research, and now having read about them, I think he was innocent.
As for Michael writing songs, I was reading yesterday in some website people saying that most of the songs that had Michael as the writer were actually written by Quincy Jones. I don't see how that can be true, as I read about Michael writing Don't stop till you get Enough and about Quincy Jones not liking Billy Jean. And after all, Michael only worked with him in two of his albums. Who are these people suggesting wrote the Michael Jackson songs on his other albums?.
Sebastian
Those are the same people who think Fred wrote [i]Another One Bites[/i] and gave the credit to John for his birthday, Brian made all the choral arrangements for [i]Bo Rhap[/i] and let Fred get away with the credit, Roger co-wrote [i]Somebody to Love[/i], David Gilmour played all the bass lines in Pink Floyd records, Brian May recorded all the bass lines for 'Innuendo', Paul Rodgers was Freddie's favourite singer, Paul McCartney's dead, the earth is flat and both [i]Bo Rhap[/i] and [i]Crazy Little Thing [/i]were composed by Elvis.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
David Gilmour played all the bass lines in Pink Floyd records,
[/QUOTE]
Pardon? Dave played the occasional bass-line, but you're taking things just a little too far here.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
David Gilmour played all the bass lines in Pink Floyd records,
[/QUOTE]
Pardon? Dave played the occasional bass-line, but you're taking things just a little too far here.