Guest Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) Just watched the memorial service for MICHAEL JACKSON at my partner's insistence. Have to say, am I the only one on here, who found it a somehat disturbing event? Ignoring the preening simperings of TREVOR NELSON and PAUL GAMBACINI, (Who dreamt up that 'Voiceover' marriage in hell?) the whole thing seemed to revolve around canonising MJ to a level beyond the hysterical. With BERRY GORDY attending, SMOKEY and STEVIE giving onstage contributions alongside a sermon style input from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S children, it felt to me as if a certain collective of people were standing up and making a very contrived statement. The REV AL SHARPTON'S raucous championing of JACKSON seemed to imply he single-handedly smashed down the barriers of racism and prejudice across the world, which to me seems both irrational and untrue. With some of Soul's biggest names lining up alongside Preachers and Black Politicians, I am still wondering at the true agenda of this event. I know it's a sensitive subject but I could not help reaching this conclusion at the close: So what if even some of those people who spoke against Jackson were telling the truth? What would it be doing to them mentally, to see a worldwide transmission and such a massively powerful and influential 'Cast' pull off this performance? To my mind, SMOKEY, MARVIN GAYE, STEVIE, CURTIS and a number of others were all superior songwriters. In the grand lobbies of the Soul Kingdom there have been countless vocalists who could sing the pants off JACKSON. As for his stage craft, yes he was great but give JACKIE WILSON and JAMES BROWN the benefit of those videos and the production scales which JACKSON was privvy to and they would have appeared at least his equal and quite possibly superior when it came to dancing.... So just what is it about JACKSON which has created this seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of adoration and emotional meltdown? Given that the beloved image of MICHAEL and THE JACKSON 5 is so intrinsically woven into the fabric of late 60s and 70s Black American consciousness, do the figureheads of that culture, view the stains and questions surrounding his reputation as some sort of combined attack on them as a 'community'. Does this explain anything concerning the show we just witnessed tonight? Am I also the only one who again, felt awkward as I watched his daughter thrust forward to close the proceedings with a tearful endorsement of him as a Father? This at a time when she was clearly emotionally distraught? What was that suposed to achieve? Is anybody really telling me that that was not supposed to be sending a message? A strange affair to say the least. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
Thfcliam Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Was very cheesy and should of been a private event. I enjoyed listening to them sing. Thought the little welsh boy was very good and will get famous now.
Guest Matt Male Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I thought, any minute now he's going to jump out of that coffin and start his comeback tour... Berry Gordy looked embarrassed and annoyed to be dragged out to attend i thought.
barney Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Just watched the memorial service for MICHAEL JACKSON at my partner's insistence. Have to say, am I the only one on here, who found it a somehat disturbing event? Ignoring the preening simperings of TREVOR NELSON and PAUL GAMBACINI, (Who dreamt up that 'Voiceover' marriage in hell?) the whole thing seemed to revolve around canonising MJ to a level beyond the hysterical. With BERRY GORDY attending, SMOKY and STEVIE giving onstage contributions alongside a sermon style input from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S children, it felt to me as if a certain collective of people were standing up and making a very contrived statement. The REV AL SHARPTON'S raucous championing of JACKSON seemed to imply he single-handedly smashed down the barriers of racism and prejudice across the world, which to me seems both irrational and untrue. With some of Soul's biggest names lining up alongside Preachers and Black Politicians, I am still wondering at the true agenda of this event. I know it's a sensitive subject but I could not help reaching this conclusion at the close: So what if even some of those people who spoke against Jackson were telling the truth? What would it be doing to them mentally, to see a worldwide transmission and such a massively powerful and influential 'Cast' pull off this performance? To my mind, SMOKEY, MARVIN GAYE, STEVIE, CURTIS and a number of others were all superior songwriters. In the grand lobbies of the Soul Kingdom there have been countless vocalists who could sing the pants off JACKSON. As for his stage craft, yes he was great but give JACKIE WILSON and JAMES BROWN the benefit of those videos and the production scales which JACKSON was privvy to and they would have appeared at least his equal and quite possibly superior when it came to dancing.... So just what is it about JACKSON which has created this seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of adoration and emotional meltdown? Given that the beloved image of MICHAEL and THE JACKSON 5 is so intrinsically woven into the fabric of late 60s and 70s Black American consciousness, do the figureheads of that culture, view the stains and questions surrounding his reputation as some sort of combined attack on them as a 'community'. Does this explain anything oncerning the show we just witnessed tonight? Am I also the only one who again, felt awkward as I watched his daughter thrust forward to close the proceedings with a tearful endorsement of him as a Father? This at a time when she was clearly emotionally distraught? What was that suposed to achieve? Is anybody really telling me that that was not supposed to be sending a message? A strange affair to say the least. I agree didnt watch it but find it all rather disturbing
Soulsmith Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I could only stand to watch parts of it. What I saw was was galling.
Ian Dewhirst Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Just watched the memorial service for MICHAEL JACKSON at my partner's insistence. Have to say, am I the only one on here, who found it a somehat disturbing event? Ignoring the preening simperings of TREVOR NELSON and PAUL GAMBACINI, (Who dreamt up that 'Voiceover' marriage in hell?) the whole thing seemed to revolve around canonising MJ to a level beyond the hysterical. With BERRY GORDY attending, SMOKY and STEVIE giving onstage contributions alongside a sermon style input from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S children, it felt to me as if a certain collective of people were standing up and making a very contrived statement. The REV AL SHARPTON'S raucous championing of JACKSON seemed to imply he single-handedly smashed down the barriers of racism and prejudice across the world, which to me seems both irrational and untrue. With some of Soul's biggest names lining up alongside Preachers and Black Politicians, I am still wondering at the true agenda of this event. I know it's a sensitive subject but I could not help reaching this conclusion at the close: So what if even some of those people who spoke against Jackson were telling the truth? What would it be doing to them mentally, to see a worldwide transmission and such a massively powerful and influential 'Cast' pull off this performance? To my mind, SMOKEY, MARVIN GAYE, STEVIE, CURTIS and a number of others were all superior songwriters. In the grand lobbies of the Soul Kingdom there have been countless vocalists who could sing the pants off JACKSON. As for his stage craft, yes he was great but give JACKIE WILSON and JAMES BROWN the benefit of those videos and the production scales which JACKSON was privvy to and they would have appeared at least his equal and quite possibly superior when it came to dancing.... So just what is it about JACKSON which has created this seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of adoration and emotional meltdown? Given that the beloved image of MICHAEL and THE JACKSON 5 is so intrinsically woven into the fabric of late 60s and 70s Black American consciousness, do the figureheads of that culture, view the stains and questions surrounding his reputation as some sort of combined attack on them as a 'community'. Does this explain anything oncerning the show we just witnessed tonight? Am I also the only one who again, felt awkward as I watched his daughter thrust forward to close the proceedings with a tearful endorsement of him as a Father? This at a time when she was clearly emotionally distraught? What was that suposed to achieve? Is anybody really telling me that that was not supposed to be sending a message? A strange affair to say the least. Typical L.A. event and a little overblown and pompous for me I have to say. When they performed "We Are The World" at the end the two females in my house were shedding tears galore, whilst I was trying hard not to spontaneously projectile vomit over my laptop...... This is 21st Century Death for ya beamed around the world into a billion living rooms. What's even spookier is the fact that the tour may well go ahead with Michael Jackson resurrected via state-of-the-art 3D technology doing all the moves he's famous for. Anyone remember Captain Zeo @ Disney World in Florida? Jacko was on the vanguard of 3D technology a long time ago and with Joe Jackson talking about a new record company integrating Blue Ray technology I reckon anything's possible. This is what America does. If they have an iconic image - think James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and now M.J. they simply carry on re-inforcing the image and exploiting it to the ultimate degree. We haven't seen anything yet believe me............. Ian D
Guest stevejan Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Just watched the memorial service for MICHAEL JACKSON at my partner's insistence. Have to say, am I the only one on here, who found it a somehat disturbing event? Ignoring the preening simperings of TREVOR NELSON and PAUL GAMBACINI, (Who dreamt up that 'Voiceover' marriage in hell?) the whole thing seemed to revolve around canonising MJ to a level beyond the hysterical. With BERRY GORDY attending, SMOKY and STEVIE giving onstage contributions alongside a sermon style input from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S children, it felt to me as if a certain collective of people were standing up and making a very contrived statement. The REV AL SHARPTON'S raucous championing of JACKSON seemed to imply he single-handedly smashed down the barriers of racism and prejudice across the world, which to me seems both irrational and untrue. With some of Soul's biggest names lining up alongside Preachers and Black Politicians, I am still wondering at the true agenda of this event. I know it's a sensitive subject but I could not help reaching this conclusion at the close: So what if even some of those people who spoke against Jackson were telling the truth? What would it be doing to them mentally, to see a worldwide transmission and such a massively powerful and influential 'Cast' pull off this performance? To my mind, SMOKEY, MARVIN GAYE, STEVIE, CURTIS and a number of others were all superior songwriters. In the grand lobbies of the Soul Kingdom there have been countless vocalists who could sing the pants off JACKSON. As for his stage craft, yes he was great but give JACKIE WILSON and JAMES BROWN the benefit of those videos and the production scales which JACKSON was privvy to and they would have appeared at least his equal and quite possibly superior when it came to dancing.... So just what is it about JACKSON which has created this seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of adoration and emotional meltdown? Given that the beloved image of MICHAEL and THE JACKSON 5 is so intrinsically woven into the fabric of late 60s and 70s Black American consciousness, do the figureheads of that culture, view the stains and questions surrounding his reputation as some sort of combined attack on them as a 'community'. Does this explain anything oncerning the show we just witnessed tonight? Am I also the only one who again, felt awkward as I watched his daughter thrust forward to close the proceedings with a tearful endorsement of him as a Father? This at a time when she was clearly emotionally distraught? What was that suposed to achieve? Is anybody really telling me that that was not supposed to be sending a message? A strange affair to say the least. Talk about waking the dead....I half expected MJ to raise the coffin lid and shout out to the Rev Al Sharpton 'shut the F*** up let me rest in peace
Guest Mezhouse Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I agree didnt watch it but find it all rather disturbing My thoughts too Barney Jo xx
Guest Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Was very cheesy and should of been a private event. I enjoyed listening to them sing. Thought the little welsh boy was very good and will get famous now. Agree the welsh boy was extremely good. Disagree with the rest of you though. I enjoyied watching it and thought it was good and well put together. Jermaine Jackson was outstanding. I don't think the little girl was thrust forward, if you watch it back, Jermaine introduced Janet but the little girl turned around and said something instead ( probably that she wanted to speak or something to that effect) Only part that didn't sit comfortable with me was the Heel the world rendition at the end. To have the whole family stood there waving back was odd, but I kinda understand it. I'm glad they did it and didn't keep it private. Jayne.
Jill Bayles Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Fully intended to watch it but gave up when I heard Stevie Wonder's spiel then as he started to sing my mobile rang which gave me the excuse to switch off. All seemed rather staged and inappropriate to me. Each to their own though
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Agree the welsh boy was extremely good. Disagree with the rest of you though. I enjoyied watching it and thought it was good and well put together. Jermaine Jackson was outstanding. I don't think the little girl was thrust forward, if you watch it back, Jermaine introduced Janet but the little girl turned around and said something instead ( probably that she wanted to speak or something to that effect) Only part that didn't sit comfortable with me was the Heel the world rendition at the end. To have the whole family stood there waving back was odd, but I kinda understand it. I'm glad they did it and didn't keep it private. Jayne. Of course it was well put together, as Ian has pointed out this is the type of thing that America, particularly LA excels at. My point is that, what if there is a semblance of truth in the allegations which were thrown at JACKSON? In the last few days they have been re-iterated by former staff who claim to have been eye witnesses to certain events. Yet that does not seem to have disturbed what I referred to as Black America's 'Royalty' i.e GORDY, STEVIE, JESSIE JACKSON, RICHIE, SMOKEY, SHARPTON, THE LUTHER KINGS etc, etc.... They all came out and contributed to one of the smaltziest things I have ever witnessed. Do they all really believe JACKSON paid 100 million dollars out for nothing? So what was this really all about? I think Ian again, has shed some valid light on certain national cultural characteristics, but I still think there is more depth to it than that. A depth specifically relating to Afro-American consciousness and the elevated image of THE JACKSONS as the perfect BLACK 'American dream', inside that collective mindscape. Virtually every Black American who grew up in the 60s and 70s 'invested' heavily in MICHAEL JACKSON, one way or another. Personally as a Soul fan, I've always seriously doubted that his creative talent genuinely matched up to the preposterous level of stardom bestowed upon him. But for Black Americans to even begin questioning JACKSON, cuts into a collective psychological setting. One that is still relatively fragile in terms of self-esteem and belief in advancement and equality. Black President or not. A priceless contribution from the gormless GAMBO came when NELSON pointed out JACKO'S mother, KATHRYN.... GAMBACINNI - 'Yes and you can see how she is the well loved one of the elder Jackson's'.... A freudian slip, or GAMBO taking an 'undercover' pop at JOE JACKSON for the well documented bullying of his sons as children, in particular MICHAEL? Bizarre but something that summed up this sad debacle perfectly. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
phillyDaveG Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 A tremendous post that Chorley. It put into words exactly what I was thinking about it. I actually turned it off about half way through the sycophantic Al Sharpton sermon. I also noted the great words said about Michael's parents, what was that about? We all know that the Jacksons suffered a pretty terrible upbringing. Not many positives I can think of. Stevie sang very well I thought.
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 A tremendous post that Chorley. It put into words exactly what I was thinking about it. I actually turned it off about half way through the sycophantic Al Sharpton sermon. I also noted the great words said about Michael's parents, what was that about? We all know that the Jacksons suffered a pretty terrible upbringing. Not many positives I can think of. Stevie sang very well I thought. Thank you. I actually thought when SHARPTON was halfway through his frothing testament - 'there surely must be lots of people turning off now' - and now I've had it confirmed! Seriously, that section was not only cringeworthy but seriously insulting to the levels of work undertaken across the world by countless people and organisations in fighting racism and oppression.
Guest Carrie Mehome Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Nevertheless a good shebang of musical giants whatever one feels about the child abuse allegations. I felt sorry for the little girl losing her Dad. On a more superficial note I was in awe of Janet's hat and handbag combo! I loved her chic outfit.
bri pinch Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 IT MADE ME FEEL SICK TO MY STOMACH, JUST A GOD AWFUL SCHMALTZFEST TURNED IT OFF AFTER HALF HOUR. BRI PINCH. SUNDAY CHILLOUT ( A MICHAEL JACKSON FREE EVENT), 16TH AUGUST, HORSE AND GROOM PUB, EAST LAITH GATE, DONCASTER. FIRST ANNIVERSARSY AND PROMOTERS BIRTHDAY BASH
chrissie Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Agree the welsh boy was extremely good. Disagree with the rest of you though. I enjoyied watching it and thought it was good and well put together. Jermaine Jackson was outstanding. I don't think the little girl was thrust forward, if you watch it back, Jermaine introduced Janet but the little girl turned around and said something instead ( probably that she wanted to speak or something to that effect) Only part that didn't sit comfortable with me was the Heel the world rendition at the end. To have the whole family stood there waving back was odd, but I kinda understand it. I'm glad they did it and didn't keep it private. Jayne. I'm with you on this one Jayne. Found it very moving, OK a little cringe worthy in some places, i.e. the black american answer to Ian Paisley, I didn't think Stevie Wonder was particularly good but that could be put down to the emotion of the moment and like you found the Heal The World moment a bit OTT. I put my hands up and admit it was definitely a box of tissue event for me. I think a death of someone within our own age group, and I was eactly the same age to the day as MJ, is always un nerving and brings home how precious any life is. QoFxx
Mark S Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I am a couple of years older than Jacko never really got him , as a kid I thought he was precosios and later a charactature just never seemed real to me . I didnt mind the jokes upon his death to me it didnt matter . Last night I sat there totally mesmerised by the spectacle squirmed as I heard Al Sharptons speach/ sermon the same one he uses whenever a leading black figure dies . Stevie was crap but he has been that way since he started braiding his hair the rest of it to me wasnt hitting the spot until ..................a little girl spoke about losing her Daddy that was the sucker punch for me .
macca Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Top post chorleysoul, top post. Berry Gordy's greatest entertainer that ever lived comment is laughable to say the least.
Rob Wigley Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 This is what America does. If they have an iconic image - think James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and now M.J. they simply carry on re-inforcing the image and exploiting it to the ultimate degree. We haven't seen anything yet believe me............. Ian D
paup-ine Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Must admit watched it, and was intriqued by it all. BUT The kids should of been left out of it, sorry. P
Modernsoulsucks Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Whilst Chorley has brought up some good points Im just wondering if he's being a bit too cynical. The allegations against Jackson obviously hung over his death but that doesn't invalidate the grief felt by his immediate family or friends. I didn't watch all the broadcast but caught the lady senator[?] talking about the money he donated to children in need. I thought good for you Michael and wouldn't we then be pretty base individuals to ascribe a guilty conscience as a motive for that charity? I then caught Smokey talking and I was touched by his words and the images shown of Michael as a young boy and, as Mark S said, when his daughter said those few words at the end, which looked entirely unstaged to me, I was moved especially when it immediately brings up the loss of your own parents, no matter what your age. Yes it did seem schmaltzy in some parts that I glimpsed and although I didn't watch all of it I'd say it was stage-managed in that I didn't notice any later pictures of Michael in his "wacko" phase nor am I aware that his father got to speak. However I think it's entirely natural that the family would try to put aside the questions hanging over his life and death when they are mourning the death of a son. They had the private funeral first and the tribute was held as far as Im aware due to demand from his fans and to prevent the family service getting out of control. Tickets were free. Maybe the TV and radio stations would have been charged for coverage but then someone had to pay for the venue and security arrangements. I can't say it looked like a marketing exercise to me with the aim of keeping him in the public eye. I do agree with Chorley that somewhere in all this is a desire on the part of some members of the Black community in the US to honour and protect one of it's own. We saw a similar thing in the case of OJ Simpson with people refusing to believe the charges brought against an individual thought to be an example of advancement and success. Michael turned to the Nation of Islam to act as bodyguards at his previous trial which then tended to give a Black/White spin to those proceedings. However the fans who packed that auditorium were of all colours so I don't see it as solely a coming together of the Black community or a hidden agenda to stick it to "Whitey" by Mr.Sharpton or any other Black activist intent on hijacking his death to engage in politicking. There may have been "Royalty" in attendence but weren't they his friends or fellow artists which you would expect given Michael's position in the entertainment industry. Like many I've yet to be convinced that Michael was set up but he was found innocent no matter how much money he paid out. I haven't read the court transcripts nor did I follow it on TV at the time so I can only wait to see what comes out in the future. In the meantime I don't think it's unreasonable to put aside sneering or ill-will whilst the Jacksons bury their son. ROD
Garethx Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) No aspect of the memorial show was remotely surprising. As a side note I think the constant innuendo about Joe Jackson's role in Michael's upbringing and the family's life is now overcooked. To say that the Jackson children had a hard life is hyperbole out of all proportion given the genuine danger, fear, famine and uncertainty faced by literally millions of children worldwide every day. Yes, Joe exploited the young Michael's talents: as their manager it was his role to ensure they wouldn't experience the blows he felt as a veteran of the seedy, segregated world of American Showbiz. He undertook to see that his family would genuinely break the glass ceiling that existed in the entertainment industry for a long time. If MJ's life came to stand for anything it is the final smashing of those barriers. All those mentioned in the forerunners thread last week, from Louis Armstrong to Smokey Robinson, helped of course, but Jackson Senior's determination to ensure that it was his brood's destiny to reap those benefits is, in some ways, laudable. Jackson's life and career is an interesting signifier of attitudes towards race in America over the last 50 years. The contradictions and ironies inherent in Michael's personality, looks and attitudes to race qualify all this in myriad ways. All this was encapsulated in last night's sometimes troubling spectacle. Edited July 8, 2009 by garethx
Steve G Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 A priceless contribution from the gormless GAMBO came when NELSON pointed out JACKO'S mother, KATHRYN.... GAMBACINNI - 'Yes and you can see how she is the well loved one of the elder Jackson's'.... A freudian slip, or GAMBO taking an 'undercover' pop at JOE JACKSON for the well documented bullying of his sons as children, in particular MICHAEL? Bizarre but something that summed up this sad debacle perfectly. The latter I'd say. Gambo would be well aware of the stories of Joe Jackson bullying.
Hermanthegerman Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) The kids should of been left out of it, sorry. P Agree completetely with that, horrible thing seing MJ´s little daughter seriously in tears and the Jackson clan importuning her hidden behind their oversized sunglasses. Edited July 8, 2009 by hermanthegerman
macca Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Importuning for immoral purposes. Never a truer word spoken etc...
Guest ritchie Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Just watched the memorial service for MICHAEL JACKSON at my partner's insistence. Have to say, am I the only one on here, who found it a somehat disturbing event? Ignoring the preening simperings of TREVOR NELSON and PAUL GAMBACINI, (Who dreamt up that 'Voiceover' marriage in hell?) the whole thing seemed to revolve around canonising MJ to a level beyond the hysterical. With BERRY GORDY attending, SMOKY and STEVIE giving onstage contributions alongside a sermon style input from MARTIN LUTHER KING'S children, it felt to me as if a certain collective of people were standing up and making a very contrived statement. The REV AL SHARPTON'S raucous championing of JACKSON seemed to imply he single-handedly smashed down the barriers of racism and prejudice across the world, which to me seems both irrational and untrue. With some of Soul's biggest names lining up alongside Preachers and Black Politicians, I am still wondering at the true agenda of this event. I know it's a sensitive subject but I could not help reaching this conclusion at the close: So what if even some of those people who spoke against Jackson were telling the truth? What would it be doing to them mentally, to see a worldwide transmission and such a massively powerful and influential 'Cast' pull off this performance? To my mind, SMOKEY, MARVIN GAYE, STEVIE, CURTIS and a number of others were all superior songwriters. In the grand lobbies of the Soul Kingdom there have been countless vocalists who could sing the pants off JACKSON. As for his stage craft, yes he was great but give JACKIE WILSON and JAMES BROWN the benefit of those videos and the production scales which JACKSON was privvy to and they would have appeared at least his equal and quite possibly superior when it came to dancing.... So just what is it about JACKSON which has created this seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of adoration and emotional meltdown? Given that the beloved image of MICHAEL and THE JACKSON 5 is so intrinsically woven into the fabric of late 60s and 70s Black American consciousness, do the figureheads of that culture, view the stains and questions surrounding his reputation as some sort of combined attack on them as a 'community'. Does this explain anything concerning the show we just witnessed tonight? Am I also the only one who again, felt awkward as I watched his daughter thrust forward to close the proceedings with a tearful endorsement of him as a Father? This at a time when she was clearly emotionally distraught? What was that suposed to achieve? Is anybody really telling me that that was not supposed to be sending a message? A strange affair to say the least. An excellent post Chorley . I agree entirely with all your coments and observations . I also was particularly bothered by his daughters 'emotional' passing shot . To me it felt like a tacked on after thought ,and smacked of exploitation . Then again what more is one to expect from tinseltown turnouts? The canonising has begun.
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 An excellent post Chorley . I agree entirely with all your coments and observations . I also was particularly bothered by his daughters 'emotional' passing shot . To me it felt like a tacked on after thought ,and smacked of exploitation . Then again what more is one to expect from tinseltown turnouts? The canonising has begun. I sat there listening to The Rev. Al Sharpton , and all I could think of was this ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMJhBnJgy2c Malc Burton
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Nevertheless a good shebang of musical giants whatever one feels about the child abuse allegations. I felt sorry for the little girl losing her Dad. On a more superficial note I was in awe of Janet's hat and handbag combo! I loved her chic outfit. That's exactly my point.... If one has the slightst concern that there might possibly have been a semblance of truth somewhere, then surely you'd feel revolted by all this glorifying of the individual now? If on the other hand, you believe beyond any doubt that he was completely innocent, then that is another matter. But... As a Black Islamist said to me on saturday, 'Brother, if the same things had been levelled at a normal man, in a normal house, in a normal street and he'd paid £10,000 to stop the allegations, he would have been hounded from his home and be held in disgrace within his community forever.' So what is it about celebrity that changes the goalposts? There are many 'good shebangs of musical giants', they do not carry the worrying aspects contained within this show. For instance - and please do not take offence at this - if the allegations had come from your own child, or a friend's or another parent at your kid's school, would you still be remotely interested in JANET JACKSON'S outfit?????? Those are the questions we ALL have to ask ourselves. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 No aspect of the memorial show was remotely surprising. As a side note I think the constant innuendo about Joe Jackson's role in Michael's upbringing and the family's life is now overcooked. To say that the Jackson children had a hard life is hyperbole out of all proportion given the genuine danger, fear, famine and uncertainty faced by literally millions of children worldwide every day. Yes, Joe exploited the young Michael's talents: as their manager it was his role to ensure they wouldn't experience the blows he felt as a veteran of the seedy, segregated world of American Showbiz. He undertook to see that his family would genuinely break the glass ceiling that existed in the entertainment industry for a long time. If MJ's life came to stand for anything it is the final smashing of those barriers. All those mentioned in the forerunners thread last week, from Louis Armstrong to Smokey Robinson, helped of course, but Jackson Senior's determination to ensure that it was his brood's destiny to reap those benefits is, in some ways, laudable. Jackson's life and career is an interesting signifier of attitudes towards race in America over the last 50 years. The contradictions and ironies inherent in Michael's personality, looks and attitudes to race qualify all this in myriad ways. All this was encapsulated in last night's sometimes troubling spectacle. As a responding sidenote, I think MICHAEL JACKSON'S will clearly indicates that the role of JOE JACKSON has certainly not been overcooked. To see him strutting around in bling and shades over the last week whilst MICHAEL deliberately cut him out of the will completely, has again reinforced many people's view of JJ's role, a view formed from the very public testimonies of his own children, I might add. Personally, I do not believe JOE JACKSON to be an intellectual analyst of capitalism, or a man on a collective moral mission as you seem to imply. I think he was a tough chancer, who had a bunch of talented kids that he cajoled and BULLIED into a level of success that he has personally fed on immensely. If anything he looked as if he was thriving on the media opportunities and attention last week. I am very sure that it was immediately apparent in JOE'S mind that the real dollar signs would start ringing now his son was dead. The real sadness of MICHAEL JACKSON'S life is that it was so abnormal from a tender age that he was almost certain to implode mentally and gravitate towards abnormal behaviour patterns as an adult. As for your comments on suffering. Everything is relative.... To compare THE JACKSONS to starving children on an African plain for instance, of course dilutes their experiences, but there is little doubt that the JACKSON BROTHERS suffered mental and physical intimidation from their Father. Finally, to imagine that MICHAEL JACKSON finally smashed down the 'barriers' of American Showbiz is naieve. The Chief Executives behind the biggest corporations such as Seagram and Sony etc are still white as are the vast majority of the real money men in Los Angeles, Hollywood and any other centre of the American entertainment business. BERRY GORDY still stands alone as the creator and figurehead of the Motown empire, there is no modern day counterpart and whilst we laud GORDY for his contribution to Soul, the reality is that he is still 'small-fry' compared to the white corporate US Entertainment Moguls.
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Whilst Chorley has brought up some good points Im just wondering if he's being a bit too cynical. The allegations against Jackson obviously hung over his death but that doesn't invalidate the grief felt by his immediate family or friends. I didn't watch all the broadcast but caught the lady senator[?] talking about the money he donated to children in need. I thought good for you Michael and wouldn't we then be pretty base individuals to ascribe a guilty conscience as a motive for that charity? I then caught Smokey talking and I was touched by his words and the images shown of Michael as a young boy and, as Mark S said, when his daughter said those few words at the end, which looked entirely unstaged to me, I was moved especially when it immediately brings up the loss of your own parents, no matter what your age. Yes it did seem schmaltzy in some parts that I glimpsed and although I didn't watch all of it I'd say it was stage-managed in that I didn't notice any later pictures of Michael in his "wacko" phase nor am I aware that his father got to speak. However I think it's entirely natural that the family would try to put aside the questions hanging over his life and death when they are mourning the death of a son. They had the private funeral first and the tribute was held as far as Im aware due to demand from his fans and to prevent the family service getting out of control. Tickets were free. Maybe the TV and radio stations would have been charged for coverage but then someone had to pay for the venue and security arrangements. I can't say it looked like a marketing exercise to me with the aim of keeping him in the public eye. I do agree with Chorley that somewhere in all this is a desire on the part of some members of the Black community in the US to honour and protect one of it's own. We saw a similar thing in the case of OJ Simpson with people refusing to believe the charges brought against an individual thought to be an example of advancement and success. Michael turned to the Nation of Islam to act as bodyguards at his previous trial which then tended to give a Black/White spin to those proceedings. However the fans who packed that auditorium were of all colours so I don't see it as solely a coming together of the Black community or a hidden agenda to stick it to "Whitey" by Mr.Sharpton or any other Black activist intent on hijacking his death to engage in politicking. There may have been "Royalty" in attendence but weren't they his friends or fellow artists which you would expect given Michael's position in the entertainment industry. Like many I've yet to be convinced that Michael was set up but he was found innocent no matter how much money he paid out. I haven't read the court transcripts nor did I follow it on TV at the time so I can only wait to see what comes out in the future. In the meantime I don't think it's unreasonable to put aside sneering or ill-will whilst the Jacksons bury their son. ROD Yes I know they are his 'friends and fellow artists' but what I am saying is, it seems to me that people are not treating JACKSON in the same way a normal guy would be treated and that if some of Black America's most famous individuals are leading this, how are normal people ever supposed to assess JACKSON objectively, rather than follow on in the 'canonisation' process? No, he was not convicted but allegations are still surfacing and it is how he is now going to be elevated even further that concerns me. As far as 'cynical' is concerned? Cynical is MICHAEL JACKSON hiding his children's faces from the press for a decade, in order to supposedly protect them, then in one dramatic moment his family conspire to gurantee they become the MOST RECOGNISABLE children in the world and for what reason Rod? Would not be to try and draw an emotional response from people, one guranteed to deflect attention from any attempts to besmirch his reputation would it? Come on, that final moment went against every previous action taken on behalf of those children and JANET JACKSON seemed determined to make sure the child was heard. You are bang on as far as O.J is concerened, yes, the same collective strains I am suggesting were at play there, the difference being that in terms of 'stardom', SIMPSON is a bit player to JACKSON. To sum up your post, yes it is so easy to empthasise when one sees kids grieving, we all lose parents. But I dont think the family 'put aside' the allegations in the slightest. I think that is exactly why PARIS was thrust into the spotlight at the final moment, possibly the most cynical PR act I have ever witnessed in the satelite television age. As IAN DEWHIRST has said we 'aint seen nothing yet' and this circus is going to grow and grow. As the money starts rolling in, it is within a certain number of interests to do everything possible to cleanse MICHAEL JACKSON'S image. It is obscene that a worldwide audience totalling hundreds of millions, had to witness the beginning of that crusade from the mouth of a distraught child. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
Modernsoulsucks Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Yes I know they are his 'friends and fellow artists' but what I am saying is, it seems to me that people are not treating JACKSON in the same way a normal guy would be treated and that some of Black America's most famous individuals are leading this, therefore how are normal peopel ever supposed to act objectively in all this rather than follow on in the 'canonisation' process? No, he was not convicted but allegations are still surfacing and it is how he is going to be elevated now that concerns me. As far as 'cynical' is concerned? Cynical is MICHAEL JACKSON hiding his children's faces from the press for a decade, in order to supposedly protect them, then in one dramatic moment his family conspire to gurantee they become the MOST RECOGNISABLE children in the world and for what reason Rod? Would not be to try and draw an emotional response from people, one guranteed to deflect attention from any attempts to besmirch his reputation would it? Come on, that final moment went against every previous action taken on behalf of those children and JANET JACKSON seemed determined to make sure the child was heard. You are bang on as far as O.J is concerened, yes, the same collective strains I am suggesting were at play there, the difference being that in terms of 'stardom', SIMPSON is a bit player to JACKSON. To sum up your post, yes it is so easy to empthasise when one sees kids grieving, we all lose parents. But I dont think the family 'put aside' the allegations in the slightest. I think that is exactly why PARIS was thrust into the spotlight at the final moment, possibly the most cynical PR act I have ever witnessed in the satelite television age. As IAN DEWHIRST has said we 'aint seen nothing yet' and this circus is going to grow and grow. As the money starts rolling in, it is within a certain number of interests to do everything possible to cleanse MICHAEL JACKSON'S image. It is obscene that a worldwide audience totalling hundreds of millions, had to witness the beginning of that crusade from the mouth of a distraught child. I can't argue too much cos I agree with nearly everything you say. It's just the ascribing of motives that leaves me a little uneasy. For instance the uncovering of the children in public. Im assuming it was Jackson in his "wacko" mode that insisted on that so now he's dead maybe somebody in the family with a better grip on reality decided that wearing a blanket was not really an option then or in the future. My wife and I did notice the children a few times in the audience and they appeared to be holding it together well particularly the two older kids. It seemed to me that the only time we saw the tears was when Paris spoke about her dad which was for a few brief seconds. It just seemed very natural to me at the time. I agree we are about to see a commercial frenzy developing to market Jackson but I don't know how important the cleansing of his image is in that. The accusations and trial are already in the public domain and yet those questions do not appear to have affected the ticket sales for his aborted concerts or the adulation from his fans. To be honest I don't think it even comes into the equation right now. I do think the father and later images of Jackson were airbrushed out somewhat but then we had the children coming on at the end. Those [most] of us who have severe reservations about Jackson's behaviour must have thought, whoa kids coupled with tribute to Jackson:very unfortunate connotations but I don't think it even enters the mindset of the Jackson camp that he was guilty of those charges. More like keep Joe out after the unedifying spectacle of him pushing his record label last week and preferring to remember Jackson in happier times before his self-destructive surgery. I do think it's important to get to the truth of the accusations levelled against him. Im tempted to say give him a bit of breathing space but that would be a very bad joke but time to mourn for the family is not unreasonable. However it is immoral for commercial interests to take precedence over valid concerns that somehow celebrity has prevented the Law from taking it's course. It will be interesting to see what attempts are made to reconcile the two. ROD
Guest nubes Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Right i have read as much shite as i can stand here...firstly Michael Jackson's memorial was a send off..that is common place within Black communities world wide okay..with or without celebrities and cameras..whether it was Los Angeles or Lagos that is the way ...things are done okay ... like it or not...considering his fan base worldwide..it was never ever going to be anything less than what it turned out to be.. right...also yep...the major players in the mainstream enterntainment industuries maybe white...but through the success of Thriller etc...Michael Jackson was very influential in the way that ordinary White suburban American kids listened and accepted Black music .. thus forcing the hand of these corporates to feature hip hop etc to a wider audience....fast forward to a time 25 years or so down the line where these now grown up subrban kids voted in Barack Obama as the first Black President..if that is such a bad thing ...please enlighten me...Del
Garethx Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) As a responding sidenote, I think MICHAEL JACKSON'S will clearly indicates that the role of JOE JACKSON has certainly not been overcooked. To see him strutting around in bling and shades over the last week whilst MICHAEL deliberately cut him out of the will completely, has again reinforced many people's view of JJ's role, a view formed from the very public testimonies of his own children, I might add. Personally, I do not believe JOE JACKSON to be an intellectual analyst of capitalism, or a man on a collective moral mission as you seem to imply. I think he was a tough chancer, who had a bunch of talented kids that he cajoled and BULLIED into a level of success that he has personally fed on immensely. If anything he looked as if he was thriving on the media opportunities and attention last week. I am very sure that it was immediately apparent in JOE'S mind that the real dollar signs would start ringing now his son was dead. The real sadness of MICHAEL JACKSON'S life is that it was so abnormal from a tender age that he was almost certain to implode mentally and gravitate towards abnormal behaviour patterns as an adult. As for your comments on suffering. Everything is relative.... To compare THE JACKSONS to starving children on an African plain for instance, of course dilutes their experiences, but there is little doubt that the JACKSON BROTHERS suffered mental and physical intimidation from their Father. Finally, to imagine that MICHAEL JACKSON finally smashed down the 'barriers' of American Showbiz is naieve. The Chief Executives behind the biggest corporations such as Seagram and Sony etc are still white as are the vast majority of the real money men in Los Angeles, Hollywood and any other centre of the American entertainment business. BERRY GORDY still stands alone as the creator and figurehead of the Motown empire, there is no modern day counterpart and whilst we laud GORDY for his contribution to Soul, the reality is that he is still 'small-fry' compared to the white corporate US Entertainment Moguls. Jackson's achievements were of course in micro when compared to the monolithic slabs of money he helped accrue for corporate America. His management (and this includes Joe Jackson, however unpalatable that seems to many) should be applauded for capitalising on their client's undoubted ability by facilitating the generation of sums of income which for an entertainer in America, particularly an African-American entertainer in the mid 20th century, were unprecedented. I don't agree with your assertion that it was 'almost certain' for Jackson's life to develop in the way it did given his childhood. Edited July 8, 2009 by garethx
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Right i have read as much shite as i can stand here...firstly Michael Jackson's memorial was a send off..that is common place within Black communities world wide okay..with or without celebrities and cameras..whether it was Los Angeles or Lagos that is the way ...things are done okay ... like it or not...considering his fan base worldwide..it was never ever going to be anything less than what it turned out to be.. right...also yep...the major players in the mainstream enterntainment industuries maybe white...but through the success of Thriller etc...Michael Jackson was very influential in the way that ordinary White suburban American kids listened and accepted Black music .. thus forcing the hand of these corporates to feature hip hop etc to a wider audience....fast forward to a time 25 years or so down the line where these now grown up subrban kids voted in Barack Obama as the first Black President..if that is such a bad thing ...please enlighten me...Del Straight away you have shown why it is difficult to discuss these matters. But the fact is that there are many, many people who felt uncomfortable watching that last night as the responses to my post have shown. Certainly in London today I have spoken with several black people who have also voiced the same concerns so lets please leave the 'read as much shite....' comments out of it please? A debate is a debate and if people feel uncomfortable they have a right to voice that. This issue is a massive subject that throws up massive questions. My Great-Great Grandmother was African, my partner is from Guyanaese roots and I've been to countless black funerals and shovelled in the mud so I dont need to be told what a black funeral is all about. 'Send off's' are also certainly not the cultural property of 'black' cultures. Asians, Celts and many other cultures share the same type of farewells but nobody - apart from western 'royalty' as far as I know, has had their funeral broadcast to such a vast audience. But who is denying the family that right? What I am discussing is the cynical use of children to propogate and further the soon to come commercial onslaught we all anticipate. In additions the motives of those who seek to convince the world that MJ was some type of saintly, spiritual figurehead. As far as MICHAEL JACKSON and hip-hop are concerned, that is potentially another huge subject. I disagree with you, I think that MICHAEL JACKSON'S music became steadily less black-orientated and more mainstream pop flavoured from 'Off The Wall' onwards. I dont think the rise of PUBLIC ENEMY and the original hip hop acts had much to do with MICHAEL whatsover. CURTIS MAYFIELD, JAMES BROWN and THE LAST POETS were far more of an influence musically and in terms of commercial progress, you are way off the mark. In fact it was BERRY GORDY who FIRST proved long ago that you could sell hundreds of millions of records by black acts to white people and as a passionate Soul fan surely you will acknowledge that? For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Lastly jumping from JACKSON - HIP HOP - OBAMA is to my mind a route that demands very serious analysis. I do sincerely believe this is exactly the type of (to borrow somebody else's word) 'hyperbole' that is encouraging the canonisation of MICHAEL JACKSON as we speak. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Only thing that bothers me,more British Broadcasting Crap i pay for like tennis,chelsea flower show,breakfast telly,and five million stupid channels etc etc. Edited July 8, 2009 by ken
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) Jackson's achievements were of course in micro when compared to the monolithic slabs of money he helped accrue for corporate America. His management (and this includes Joe Jackson, however unpalatable that seems to many) should be applauded for capitalising on their client's undoubted ability by facilitating the generation of sums of income which for an entertainer in America, particularly an African-American entertainer in the mid 20th century, were unprecedented. I don't agree with your assertion that it was 'almost certain' for Jackson's life to develop in the way it did given his childhood. Your closing statement leaves you sadly at odds with history. Childhood stardom and adoration in America, does not tend to produce balanced, rational Adults. Far from it, even a cursory study of American Child/teen stars will throw up an overwhelming wedge of contrary evidence. There have been countless examples that dictate quite clearly, that such levels of fame often result in emotional and mental imbalance. I am more than willing to outline a long list of 'case histories' to back this up but I suggest you think hard about that, before we go down that road. As for the first paragraph, that is an enormous 'position' you are adopting. It actually opens up the fundamental examination of capitalism as a human force.... Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white? Personally, I believe history again teaches us a resounding 'No!'. As a result, JOE JACKSON, his 'management' and whoever was responsible for the level of commercial success, have ultimately contributed enormously to MICHAEL JACKSON'S early death. As with ELVIS and so many others, the artists are literally sacrificed at the altar of the Dollar. When the unrelenting pursuit of profit becomes an acceptable moral position, human beings be it individuals like MICHAEL JACKSON or starving third world populations, usually suffer the unavoidable consequences. So we obviously see human principles very differently. Edited July 8, 2009 by chorleysoul
Guest nubes Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Straight away you have shown why it is difficult to discuss these matters. But the fact is that there are many, many people who felt uncomfortable watching that last night as the responses to my post have shown. Certainly in London today I have spoken with several black people who have also voiced the same concerns so lets please leave the 'read as much shite....' comments out of it please? A debate is a debate and if people feel uncomfortable they have a right to voice that. This issue is a massive subject that throws up massive questions. My Great-Great Grandmother was African, my partner is from Guyanaese roots and I've been to countless black funerals and shovelled in the mud so I dont need to be told what a black funeral is all about. 'Send off's' are also certainly not the cultural property of 'black' cultures. Asians, Celts and many other cultures share the same type of farewells but nobody - apart from western 'royalty' as far as I know, has had their funeral broadcast to such a vast audience. But who is denying the family that right? What I am discussing is the cynical use of children to propogate and further the soon to come commercial onslaught we all anticipate. In additions the motives of those who seek to convince the world that MJ was some type of saintly, spiritual figurehead. As far as MICHAEL JACKSON and hip-hop are concerned, that is potentially another huge subject. I disagree with you, I think that MICHAEL JACKSON'S music became steadily less black-orientated and more mainstream pop flavoured from 'Off The Wall' onwards. I dont think the rise of PUBLIC ENEMY and the original hip hop acts had much to do with MICHAEL whatsover. CURTIS MAYFIELD, JAMES BROWN and THE LAST POETS were far more of an influence musically and in terms of commercial terms you are way off the mark. In fact it was BERRY GORDY who FIRST proved long ago that you could sell hundreds of millions of records by black acts to white people and as a passionate Soul fan surely you will acknowledge that? For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Lastly jumping from JACKSON - HIP HOP - OBAMA is to my mind a route that demands very serious analysis. I do sincerely beleieve this is exactly the type of (to borrow somebody else's expression) 'hyperbole' that is encouraging the canonisation of MICHAEL JACKSON as we speak. Why is it difficult??...i have given a point of view...you have yours..did i say you was wrong ??No...you say that you have spoken to 'several Black people'...does that mean that i have ta share their opinions purely because i share the same skin colour??..my great Geat Grandfather was Irish American gypsy stock..my partner...Irish background..10 years standing.and like u..unfortunately been to both types of funerals...yep concede on the type of send off...but this is someone ..who is known worldwide...and whatever any of us think ...it was never ever going to be a quiet sedate affair..even with the best will in the world...you still dissagree about Jackson's influence at MTV?...that is entirely your choice..but i can only speak as i find ...Berry Gordy..did ..what he had to do to make Black music viable to a white audience..simple as... I could go into 1001 reasons ..but know it would be wasted as to why MJ was quite influential...into paving the way for Obama to be President...but that is another subject eh...Del
Guest nubes Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Straight away you have shown why it is difficult to discuss these matters. But the fact is that there are many, many people who felt uncomfortable watching that last night as the responses to my post have shown. Certainly in London today I have spoken with several black people who have also voiced the same concerns so lets please leave the 'read as much shite....' comments out of it please? A debate is a debate and if people feel uncomfortable they have a right to voice that. This issue is a massive subject that throws up massive questions. My Great-Great Grandmother was African, my partner is from Guyanaese roots and I've been to countless black funerals and shovelled in the mud so I dont need to be told what a black funeral is all about. 'Send off's' are also certainly not the cultural property of 'black' cultures. Asians, Celts and many other cultures share the same type of farewells but nobody - apart from western 'royalty' as far as I know, has had their funeral broadcast to such a vast audience. But who is denying the family that right? What I am discussing is the cynical use of children to propogate and further the soon to come commercial onslaught we all anticipate. In additions the motives of those who seek to convince the world that MJ was some type of saintly, spiritual figurehead. As far as MICHAEL JACKSON and hip-hop are concerned, that is potentially another huge subject. I disagree with you, I think that MICHAEL JACKSON'S music became steadily less black-orientated and more mainstream pop flavoured from 'Off The Wall' onwards. I dont think the rise of PUBLIC ENEMY and the original hip hop acts had much to do with MICHAEL whatsover. CURTIS MAYFIELD, JAMES BROWN and THE LAST POETS were far more of an influence musically and in terms of commercial terms you are way off the mark. In fact it was BERRY GORDY who FIRST proved long ago that you could sell hundreds of millions of records by black acts to white people and as a passionate Soul fan surely you will acknowledge that? For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Lastly jumping from JACKSON - HIP HOP - OBAMA is to my mind a route that demands very serious analysis. I do sincerely beleieve this is exactly the type of (to borrow somebody else's expression) 'hyperbole' that is encouraging the canonisation of MICHAEL JACKSON as we speak. Why is it difficult??...i have given a point of view...you have yours..did i say you was wrong ??No...you say that you have spoken to 'several Black people'...does that mean that i have ta share their opinions purely because i share the same skin colour??..my great Geat Grandfather was Irish American gypsy stock..my partner...Irish background..10 years standing.and like u..unfortunately been to both types of funerals...yep concede on the type of send off...but this is someone ..who is known worldwide...and whatever any of us think ...it was never ever going to be a quiet sedate affair..even with the best will in the world...you still dissagree about Jackson's influence at MTV?...that is entirely your choice..but i can only speak as i find ...Berry Gordy..did ..what he had to do to make Black music viable to a white audience..simple as... I could go into 1001 reasons ..but know it would be wasted as to why MJ was quite influential...into paving the way for Obama to be President...but that is another subject eh...Del
Guest nubes Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Straight away you have shown why it is difficult to discuss these matters. But the fact is that there are many, many people who felt uncomfortable watching that last night as the responses to my post have shown. Certainly in London today I have spoken with several black people who have also voiced the same concerns so lets please leave the 'read as much shite....' comments out of it please? A debate is a debate and if people feel uncomfortable they have a right to voice that. This issue is a massive subject that throws up massive questions. My Great-Great Grandmother was African, my partner is from Guyanaese roots and I've been to countless black funerals and shovelled in the mud so I dont need to be told what a black funeral is all about. 'Send off's' are also certainly not the cultural property of 'black' cultures. Asians, Celts and many other cultures share the same type of farewells but nobody - apart from western 'royalty' as far as I know, has had their funeral broadcast to such a vast audience. But who is denying the family that right? What I am discussing is the cynical use of children to propogate and further the soon to come commercial onslaught we all anticipate. In additions the motives of those who seek to convince the world that MJ was some type of saintly, spiritual figurehead. As far as MICHAEL JACKSON and hip-hop are concerned, that is potentially another huge subject. I disagree with you, I think that MICHAEL JACKSON'S music became steadily less black-orientated and more mainstream pop flavoured from 'Off The Wall' onwards. I dont think the rise of PUBLIC ENEMY and the original hip hop acts had much to do with MICHAEL whatsover. CURTIS MAYFIELD, JAMES BROWN and THE LAST POETS were far more of an influence musically and in terms of commercial terms you are way off the mark. In fact it was BERRY GORDY who FIRST proved long ago that you could sell hundreds of millions of records by black acts to white people and as a passionate Soul fan surely you will acknowledge that? For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Lastly jumping from JACKSON - HIP HOP - OBAMA is to my mind a route that demands very serious analysis. I do sincerely beleieve this is exactly the type of (to borrow somebody else's expression) 'hyperbole' that is encouraging the canonisation of MICHAEL JACKSON as we speak. Why is it difficult??...i have given a point of view...you have yours..did i say you was wrong ??No...you say that you have spoken to 'several Black people'...does that mean that i have ta share their opinions purely because i share the same skin colour??..my great Geat Grandfather was Irish American gypsy stock..my partner...Irish background..10 years standing.and like u..unfortunately been to both types of funerals...yep concede on the type of send off...but this is someone ..who is known worldwide...and whatever any of us think ...it was never ever going to be a quiet sedate affair..even with the best will in the world...you still dissagree about Jackson's influence at MTV?...that is entirely your choice..but i can only speak as i find ...Berry Gordy..did ..what he had to do to make Black music viable to a white audience..simple as... I could go into 1001 reasons ..but know it would be wasted as to why MJ was quite influential...into paving the way for Obama to be President...but that is another subject eh...Del
Guest Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Why is it difficult??...i have given a point of view...you have yours..did i say you was wrong ??No...you say that you have spoken to 'several Black people'...does that mean that i have ta share their opinions purely because i share the same skin colour??..my great Geat Grandfather was Irish American gypsy stock..my partner...Irish background..10 years standing.and like u..unfortunately been to both types of funerals...yep concede on the type of send off...but this is someone ..who is known worldwide...and whatever any of us think ...it was never ever going to be a quiet sedate affair..even with the best will in the world...you still dissagree about Jackson's influence at MTV?...that is entirely your choice..but i can only speak as i find ...Berry Gordy..did ..what he had to do to make Black music viable to a white audience..simple as... I could go into 1001 reasons ..but know it would be wasted as to why MJ was quite influential...into paving the way for Obama to be President...but that is another subject eh...Del I meant difficult because of your 'read enough shite' opening comment, which seemed to imply anger....my experience tells me that whenever people - in general - are asked to examine heroes, sometimes it's a painful experience and I have witnessed several passionate arguments between friends regarding MICHAEL JACKSON for one! Secondly, I mentioned the discomfort of several black people because the way the media presents these things - and the united turnout - of so many big personalities, sometimes makes it difficult for people with opposing perspectives to voice their views. Nobody wants to get shouted down and MICHAEL JACKSON is an emotive subject. I happen to think this subject is of particular importance to Black Americans as a collective group so thats why I mentioned the feelings of those people - it is important that all perspectives are aired, not simply the emotional adulation and celebration of what was essentially quite a tortured life. Sorry I did not see MTV mentioned in your original post? I am not saying MICHAEL JACKSON did not open up and widen cultural meters, but simply that I feel he did so by moving further away from a black-orientated style musically. This was also mirrored by the horrendous bouts of surgery and bleaching of his skin. He went from being a beautiful young black child to looking like a white Transvestite mock-up of LIZ TAYLOR and whilst this might have done MTV's bank balance a power of good, what did it do to his soul? Secondly, what message did it send to millions of black kids across the world? I was in Brooklyn not long ago, I go regularly and it is horrifying to see 'skin bleaching' treatments for kids, openly advertised in the windows of Black Salons at the top of Pitkin Avene. These issues are enormously important and must not be swept under the carpet in the face of his death. As for BERRY GORDY, what I am saying is that when it comes to opening up the ears of white America to black music, GORDY is far more important historically than MICHAEL JACKSON. The achievement of MOTOWN collectively, is likewise far more important than the solo career of MICHAEL JACKSON, never mind all the hype about how many frigging records he sold - since when has that been a barometer of great black music? If it was there would never have been a need or a desire for the Northern Soul scene for a start! Lastly, yeah I agree, the debate regarding the generic progression from MJ to OBAMA is too complex for this thread but it is a fascinating subject all the same!
Ian Dewhirst Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) I am not saying MICHAEL JACKSON did not open up and widen cultural meters, but simply that I feel he did so by moving further away from a black-orientated style musically. This was also mirrored by the horrendous bouts of surgery and bleaching of his skin. He went from being a beautiful young black child to looking like a white Transvestite mock-up of LIZ TAYLOR and whilst this might have done MTV's bank balance a power of good, what did it do to his soul? Secondly, what message did it send to millions of black kids across the world? I was in Brooklyn not long ago, I go regularly and it is horrifying to see 'skin bleaching' treatments for kids, openly advertised in the windows of Black Salons at the top of Pitkin Avene. These issues are enormously important and must not be swept under the carpet in the face of his death. Actually, that's almost another discussion entirely isn't it? Why would the great looking young black guy arguably at the height of his powers with "Off The Wall" decide to bleach his skin white, mutilate his face and re-christen himself 'the King Of Pop'? This was a kid who went to pains to make himself white surely? That's what kind of surprised me when a lot of the veteran political black heavy-hitters were wheeled out at his funeral. It's almost as though MJ was being re-claimed by the Black American elite. Considering that he spent the last couple of years of his life living like a wandering hermit without a home and staying in people's houses in Bahrain and Ireland, it begs the question of what support or help was he getting from the very people who were eulogising him at his funeral? Great speaker though Al Sharpton undoubtably is, he has a habit of turning up wherever the TV cameras are doesn't he? I wonder if he ever had a one-on-one conversation with MJ........? There are more questions than answers here really aren't there.......? Ian D Edited July 8, 2009 by Ian Dewhirst
Ian Dewhirst Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Your closing statement leaves you sadly at odds with history. Childhood stardom and adoration in America, does not tend to produce balanced, rational Adults. Far from it, even a cursory study of American Child/teen stars will throw up an overwhelming wedge of contrary evidence. There have been countless examples that dictate quite clearly, that such levels of fame often result in emotional and mental imbalance. I am more than willing to outline a long list of 'case histories' to back this up but I suggest you think hard about that, before we go down that road. Not just America either. Anyone remember Lena Zavaroni? Ian D
paup-ine Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Not just America either. Anyone remember Lena Zavaroni? Ian D In answer to your question, yes I do P
Garethx Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Your closing statement leaves you sadly at odds with history. Childhood stardom and adoration in America, does not tend to produce balanced, rational Adults. Far from it, even a cursory study of American Child/teen stars will throw up an overwhelming wedge of contrary evidence. There have been countless examples that dictate quite clearly, that such levels of fame often result in emotional and mental imbalance. I am more than willing to outline a long list of 'case histories' to back this up but I suggest you think hard about that, before we go down that road. As for the first paragraph, that is an enormous 'position' you are adopting. It actually opens up the fundamental examination of capitalism as a human force.... Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white? Personally, I believe history again teaches us a resounding 'No!'. As a result, JOE JACKSON, his 'management' and whoever was responsible for the level of commercial success, have ultimately contributed enormously to MICHAEL JACKSON'S early death. As with ELVIS and so many others, the artists are literally sacrificed at the altar of the Dollar. When the unrelenting pursuit of profit becomes an acceptable moral position, human beings be it individuals like MICHAEL JACKSON or starving third world nations, usually suffer the unavoidable consequences. So we obviously see human priinciples very differently. Hold on a second. You clearly don't know me very well to conclude from the above that I am keen to go in to bat for American capitalism. Jackson's ability to make and squander money was one of, if not the most noteworthy aspects of his life and celebrity and certainly worth commenting on. In answer to your question "Does it really do any individual any good to be worth billions of dollars, be they black or white?" I am clearly less qualified than you to make the sweeping generalisation implied by it. As for your long list of child showbiz casualties I'm aware of both high profile and more obscure cases, but I have to suspect that tales of woe from these quarters can often exaggerated in order to scratch the itch for continued exposure to the narcotic that is celebrity. It is of course entirely possible to taste success in the field of entertainment and then melt away from the public eye and enjoy a life of mundane, un-damaged normality. I suspect that the numbers in the respective camps would tend not bear out your theory of inevitability. In any case, the extent of Jackson's fame was highly unusual and his exposure to the limelight extremely prolonged, so drawing parallels with erstwhile soap opera stars who go off the rails is perhaps unhelpful. You state: For all the insane hype surrounding him, MICHAEL JACKSON individually is less important historically than MOTOWN as a collective, something which is perhaps in danger of being obscured by the fanatical hysteria being accorded to JACKSON in death. Yet it is possible that it is Berry Gordy and the Motown phenomenon which are as culpable in the tragic dimensions of what came to be Jackson's predicament as Joe Jackson, the American media and global capitalism (and by extenion in your argument, record buyers worldwide). Child entertainers in R&B were a not uncommon part of that field of entertainment in the mid 1960s. While The Jackson 5 were making independently distributed records in and around their hometown. Tony Talent, Little Gary Ferguson, Larry Chubby Reynolds, The Admirations and a host of others were doing the same throughout the States, with varying degrees of success. While precocious the Jacksons were not in themselves unique. That they were eventually signed by Gordy, groomed, styled and sold in the patented Motown manner was to be both their blessing and their curse. In creating unprecedented demand for the products of a group of adolescents it was Motown which exacerbated the strains on the vulnerable young performers. Yes, Motown has cultural significance, but it is entirely possible to argue that it actually has far less cultural significance than the Michael Jackson phenomenon. By the early 1980s Motown was a spent force aesthetically and economically. Indeed the recording arm of the Corporation could be said to be a failure of almost unparalleled dimension by that time, with operating costs and other outgoings wildly at odds with the revenues tricking in from an extremely mediocre roster. Berry Gordy was acutely aware of the need to sell the company in order that the legacy of the songwriting and publishing archive could be 'safeguarded' (i.e. kept in his own hands). The years of Motown representing an unqualified Black Success Story actually represent quite a short time span in the company's life. If the barometer of success is 'crossing over' in terms of sales and profile (and we must use that barometer because these were the terms in which Gordy himself saw success) then very few could actually be said to be successful. Outside of Jackson, Gordy himself, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross and Stevie Wonder no Motown artist or figure achieved lasting, concrete success (in Gordy's terms) outside of cult fame in their lifetime. Motown Records would mean practically nothing to most people in the world in current terms outside a core of afficionados, whereas Jackson's iconic status is guaranteed now. Michael Jackson's Memorial Concert was broadcast live globally. Berry Gordy's will not be, and I think that's beyond question. That's different from asking whether that should be the case, but then I'm not the one making judgements.
Agent45 Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I don't feel like this was any different than the way the American media treated the death of Ronald Reagan (Princess Di also springs to mind to be honest). Both memorials were over-hyped and over-televised to the point of nausea. Actually, the biggest difference I can think of is that the Jackson's set up a web site for people to contribute to the costs of putting on that spectacle yesterday. That in itself is despicable, but probably no more so than having the American taxpayers foot the bill for Reagan's - though I should probably do some fact checking to see if that's what really happened. I can only hope that people like Prince, Brittany and Madonna have long, LONG lives ahead of them. James Brown's death was also similar to MJ's though not to such extremes. This isn't a black/white thing, or even a capitalism thing. It's the way America treats celebrity coupled with a 24 hour news cycle. These TV stations have to fill time somehow, and now EVERYTHING gets blown way out of proportion. Luckily, I had plenty to keep me busy at work yesterday so I was nowhere near a television. Once I finally did throw on the tube, I just caught up on Tour de France highlights and then went out for dinner and beers with friends.
grantdyche Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Lost for words on here at the moment, Speculating on the size of audience for a persons yet to be funeral!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give it a rest for god sake, Grant
Agent45 Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Lost for words on here at the moment, Speculating on the size of audience for a persons yet to be funeral!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give it a rest for god sake, Grant I was referring more to the way these deaths are treated in the media, not the number of people in attendance, though I guess you could have been referring to somebody else's post before mine? *shrug*
Garethx Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Lost for words on here at the moment, Speculating on the size of audience for a persons yet to be funeral!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give it a rest for god sake, Grant You win the prize for 'Week's Most Self Righteous Post".
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!