Michael Wolraich's picture

    Michael Jackson: Overrated

    By Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 1:38pm | Arts & Entertainment

    The media continues to lionize Michael Jackson with a deluge of tributes, retrospectives, and eulogies, and a stream of breathless reporting about what his doctor said and what his sisters did and where his kids stayed. Some of my co-bloggers have compared him to John Lennon. Other articles have placed him in a triumvirate with Lennon and Elvis Presley.

    Michael Jackson may well have been the "King of Pop," an inglorious distinction. Pop music is characterized by over-produced sound, trite and superficial lyrics, gooey sentimentality, glitzy spectacle, corporate sponsorships, and explosive but short-lived careers--all hallmarks of Jackson's reign. The brief spark of creativity that Jackson helped inspire in the early 80's quickly slipped into a morass of pop tripe, dominated by powerful profit-driven record labels and artistry-free Top-10 lists.

    TIME magazine called Jackson, "a one-man rescue team for the music business." I can't help thinking that it's a shame that the "music business" was rescued at all, and I wonder what innovations might have flowered if my generation had not been stuffed with a sugar candy diet of Casey Kasem's Top 40 and MTV dance videos.

    I don't deny that Jackson was innovative and influential, that he was a legendary performer, and that he introduced millions of white kids to motown influences. He should be respected and appreciated for his accomplishments (if vilified for his sins). But let's not confuse influence with importance or popularity with excellence. Michael Jackson was indeed the King of Pop, no more, no less.

    Way past his peak:

    Profit defeats art:

    Point of greatest cultural influence and lowest artistic merit:

    Michael Jackson's legacy:

     

    Topics: 
    Arts & Entertainment

    Comments

    Dude, Michael Jackson had unique talent as a dancer, singer, writer and overall performer.  He had what they call "star Q", or star quotient:  that immeasurable certain something that a true star has, that can't really be described, but you know it when you see it.  I don't think he is being overrated since his death.  I think the attention he and his work are getting now is just right in light of his musical contributions and iconic influence.  Peace out.


    by p-twist (not verified) on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 3:13pm

    I'll give you iconic influence, but musical contributions? Please detail.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 3:56pm

    Ghengis, you asked me "I'll give you iconic influence, but musical contributions? Please detail."  Okay, here goes:  While I wouldn't say that Michael's music was necessarily innovative or original versus drawing on a wonderful mix of existing influences, he did make some great contributions to pop music in terms of many of the songs themselves being wonderful songs .  From the early days of the Jackson Five's great pop Motown/'70's pop soul sound (my personal fave Jackson Five song is "Dancing Machine") to later solo singles such as "Wanna Be Startin' Something", don't you have to love the pop perfection inherent to some of his musical portfolio?  Anyone with any funk and soul in their DNA would have to love these songs and consider them musical contributions...unless one is a snob about pop music in general, which is another whole argument.  You cannot NOT dance to and love those songs.  They have complexity and great rhythms and arrangements, etc.  Come on.  Admit it.  You all love the Jackson Five and at least some of Michael's music.  Granted, some of his songs are just, as Joni Mitchell might say, "stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular song".  In other words, some of them are just formula product and pretty vapid at that.  But other ones:  WOW!  Pop genius!  Hence, the whole King of Pop title (which, granted, THAT might be overblown a little...I might give that title to Elton John myself, but anyway, moving along...).  All I'm saying is that the man--in tandem with his bro's and then later as a solo artist, did make a great contribution to America's pop music portfolio.


    by p-twist (not verified) on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 10:04am

    Thanks for the follow-up p-twist. MJ doesn't really do it for me, but that said, I won't dispute pop genius, and agree that this is a contribution, though I still don't think it amounts to what some are making of it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:20am

    Well, thank YOU for your civil way of discussing things (pretty rare on ye olde net) and I agree that he, for me anyway, isn't up there with any of my fave-o-faves (Beatles) and he didn't do much in the way of originating, music-wise (for that matter, I don't think Elvis was "The King of Rock", I think that title belongs to artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Bill Haley & His Comets, who really ORIGINATED rock-n-roll--Elvis just was the first white boy to do it and, granted, he did it with extraordinary charisma and unique style and, let's face it, sexiness--he didn't bring sexy back, he created it *lol*), but Michael Jackson as an overall performer was extraordinary--the total package, not just the music.  Someone described him in a piece I read since his death as a, quote, "stick of dynamite" on stage and I think that describes it.  The precise, original (in dance, he did originate) dance moves, the soulful way he sung far ahead of his years when a child, etc.  And, like I said earlier, some of the songs of The Jackson Five and then of Michael as a solo artist were really great, great works of pop, imho (and then some of his solo stuff was decidedly not, too, I'll grant ya).  My entire point, such as it is, is simply that, imho, I think the attention he is getting now is warranted.  As for the title "King of Pop"?  That one is definitely up for debate.  ...Anyway, this is a good discussion!  And I may join the throngs of people ordering Thriller on Amazon because suddenly I have a burning desire to hear "Wanna be Startin' Something" and I don't have the net at home so I don't dare go to youtube here at work.  ANYWAY:  peace out, and I hope Michael Jackson is finally at peace now.  I think a lot of his music will stand the test of time and be enjoyed as long as there are humans left on this planet to enjoy it.


    by p-twist (not verified) on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:08pm

    P.S.  correction to my last post, wherein I erroneously stated that Elvis was the first "white boy" to do rock and roll:  Bill Haley--imho one of the true "Kings of Rock and Roll"--was a "white boy", too, but just older and--sorry Bill--not as sexy to the then up-and-coming Baby Boomers as young Elvis was.  Elvis was the right person at the right time to bring rock and roll to the masses.  But, again, imho, the "Kings of Rock" were the originators like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bill Haley, et al.  Not that Elvis wasn't important, he just wasn't--imho--THE "King" of Rock.  Nor is Michael, imho, the King of Pop.  Yet both were certainly important.


    by p-twist (not verified) on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:14pm

    Well, thank YOU for your civil way of discussing things (pretty rare on ye olde net)

    That's how we do it here at dag. Or try anyway, except when the Canadian subversives get us all riled up. Come back any time.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 2:35pm

    That's right, blame Canada once again.


    by acanuck on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 2:57pm

    Before I reassume my role as official MJ defender/apologist here on dagblog, let me just say thank you G for posting these videos (the last one doesn't work, but the others are classics in every sense of the word).

    Now to your blog's main premise: Puh-leeze. First of all, it's very surprising to see you wax negative about something that has strong mass appeal; it's so unlike you, G (note sarcasm).

    Was some of Michael Jackson's work cheesy and/or overwrought? Why, of course. It was the friggin 80s for chrissakes. I'm shocked most of his work holds up as well as it does. Yes, we are the world maybe one of the most treacly pieces of the music ever written, but in my opinion, it did its job: raising tons of money and awareness for the cause it was intended to highlight.

    And yes, the quality of MJ's work did deteriorate and grow stale as he grew older, though he tried to remain innovative/relevant with songs like Black and White and Scream. But that kind of career arc is probably more typical than not for all artists as they try to adjust their work to change with the times. the fact is, MJ remained at the top of his game for a rather long time (even longer if you give him some credit for the success of the Jackson 5).and you have to wonder if his output wouldn't have been greater if it hadn't been for his mental illness and some of the other personal setbacks in his life.

    this is more for A-man rather than you G, but questioning MJ's influence in the world of pop culture and music is asinine. whether it was his success in helping bring the motown sound to the masses, or his innovative music video experiments, or his instantly identifiable fashion tastes, you cannot take a serious look at pop music of the past 30 years without studying Jackson's influences.

    i do think you can at least fairly debate the positive or negative nature of those influences, as G is attempting to do.

    finally, i love when you and A-man say, yeah, he was a great singer, songwriter, dancer, entertainer, marketer, but other than that he was so overrated. i only wish i could be as overrated as jackson is.


    by Deadman on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 3:23pm

    D, I too wish that you were as overrated as Michael Jackson. We'd get some serious traffic on the blog, though it might help if you got some plastic surgery.

    Look, if we were comparing Jackson to other pop stars, say Madonna or Prince, I'd say OK, same league, let's compare (though for the record, I think that both had a more positive influence on pop music than Jackson). But Lennon and Presley? I can name plenty of people I would put between Jackson and those two, no matter how popular he was.

    I think that Bill Clinton was a good president (scandals notwithstanding), and I expect Obama to be a better one, and I wish that I had anything close to their talents, but I'm not prepared to line either one up against Washington and Lincoln. If you were to do so, I'd say that you were overrating them.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 3:53pm

    shoot, a lot of people think paul was the main one responsible for the beatles' success or think that presley just stole things from black musicians. i will agree that MJ is more in the camp of Madonna and Prince.

    both you and A-man seem to be largely arguing issues of taste, not talent or influence. it's just really hard to argue on that front since tastes can vary so greatly. i happen to think thriller is a genius album that will stand the test of time as a serious and yes, influential, musical achievement. not just because it sold so many effin records either.


    by Deadman on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 4:02pm

    I admit that my distaste for Jackson motivates my post, but talent and influence are not the same taste, and there is content to my critiques of his influence (I've stayed away from the less quantifiable judgment of "talent"). In contrast, I have not seen much content behind those who see him as influential as Elvis and Lennon. You've got to do better than Justin Timberlake.

    And yes, people disagree about the influence of Lennon and Elvis, but disagreement doesn't mean that the question is moot.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 4:12pm

    "his innovative music video experiments" .. . Well firstly, I believe a certain Mister John Landis ( the director ) should take some credit for those videos of Jackson's. Secondly, they really weren't all THAT pioneering anyway ( more false hype right there I believe ). There were numerous other musical artists who'd already been making conceptual music videos long before Jackson got around to it, like namely The Buggles ( Video Killed the Radio Star ), Talking Heads ( Once in a Lifetime ), David Bowie ( Ashes to Ashes ), Devo ( numerous ones, including a short film titled 'The Truth About De-evolution ), and even Frank Zappa ( Uncle Meat and numerous other musical short films ). Jackson just made HIS with much bigger budgetts and more publicity than anyone before ( he could aford to cause he was already a pretty big name star ). And anyway, even that famous 'Thriller video is miserably dated and corny as hell TODAY!


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 04/19/2014 - 1:35pm

    Must read:

    Man Assaults Bus Passenger Over Michael Jackson Comment

    Regardless of how we stand on this issue at least we are not as crazy as this guy!


    by Larry Jankens on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 5:55pm

    I think there's some rampant snobbery going on here (but I won't name any names). I generally like anything that's not trying to be something other than it is--that goes for books, movies, and music. Jackson as an entertainer was monstrously successful, because he knew exactly what he was and he didn't try to be anything else. 


    by Orlando on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 6:24pm

    I think it'd be a good idea to separate the last fifteen years of freak show from the musician/performer/etc to begin with.  It almost sounds like you guys are just sick of a weekend (that will inevitably turn into way longer) of Michael This, Michael That.  I've had moments like that with Celine Dion, Kevin Spacey, Tom Hanks, to name a few -- they were just everywhere and even where before I liked some of their work here and there,  I was suddenly disgusted with seeing them.

    If you can separate the two, then I offer up the example of one musician who, at the age of 2, just barely able to talk, knew how to put "Thriller" on the record album and listen to every track, and learned every word to every song, and who at the age of 4 or 5 had an understanding that some musician wrote their own music and some didn't.  He got older, following Michael pretty heavily until around 1993 or so when it became less cool to like the man.

    This kid, a teenager, tries his hand at writing songs, learns from other artists that he likes, learns guitar, discovers his singing is pleasant to others and not just himself, and works for a little over a decade on making these things better.  He'd admit all the while that Michael Jackson is not his only influence, or even his strongest, and for all intents and purposes, he's convinced that Michael Jackson in 2009 is about as washed up as it gets and trying too hard to stay current instead of sticking to what he's good at.

    But when this musician gets word of Michael Jackson dying, he remembers that little boy who saw Michael Jackson and heard him sing, and learned the words and wanted to BE Michael Jackson, and it occurs to him that if not for Michael Jackson, he'd probably be a lot less interested in making music.  This musician isn't any more than locally famous in the area he lives, and he's not expecting -- especially with the industry the way it is -- to ever really get anywhere beyong his local fame, nice as it would be -- but a tiny bit of him wonders, even still.   And as a musician -- not a pop musician, not a dancer, not a "performer," but a singer-songwriter with a fun band in a sea of the same -- he also finds that he's hardly in the minority among the musicians in his city.   Lots of us have been influenced by him in some way or another, even if it's a negative influence -- it's just undeniable.

    I'd also suggest to you guys to buy/download/pandora/napster/etc The DEMO recordings of "Workin' Day and Night" and "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," which are on the special edition of "Off the Wall."  These demos are demos that Michael took to Quincy Jones for consideration for that album, and while they were young songs with not-fully-formed words, note the arrangement of the instruments -- played by Michael, Janet, and either Randy or Marlon.  Then listen to the finished products.    Did he have people that wrote songs for him? Sure, he was a pop superstar even in the late seventies, and even on Motown when Berry Gordy silenced Michael's desires to record some of his own work as he got older.   But to say all he could do was sing, peform, and write words when one (arguably both) of those songs is one of the most classic bits of pop/dance music to close out that era -- and the majority of the work was done before it got recorded with pro musicians.

    It should also be noted that he did play instruments on Thriller, look it up, and he wrote a LOT of his hit songs.   We don't have access to every demo the man ever made, but I think those two on their own show that he most likely had more involvement with the creation of his songs than you may think -- and that's not dancing, videos, or fashion.  That's music.  "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," "Workin' Day and Night," "Beat It," "Billie Jean," "Wanna Be Startin' Something," "The Girl Is Mine," "Bad," "The Way You Make Me Feel," "Smooth Criminal," "I Just Can't Stop Lovin' You," "Heal The World," "Black or White," and "Will You Be There (Free Willy)" are some of his most-well-known tracks -- and he wrote them himself.  So again, there's his contribution to music.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 7:40pm

    Hey there anonymous. I really appeciate the detailed and personal comment, and your point about the effect Jackson had on so many of us growing up--whether or not we liked him--is a fair one. I also think that I may have come off as more dismissive than intended; I didn't mean to argue that Jackson was not influential to many. That said, I stand by my point that his influence and importance in recent music history has been overrated in this media onslaught. That said, I suppose the answer won't really be apparent one way or another until the smoke clears years from now.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 11:05pm

    This thread got silly, I think. Not important or excellent? MJ has to beat Elvis or John Lennon to matter? Jeez, why not throw in Dylan and pretend you didn't just look for an excuse to kick MJ's ass.

    How about I put it this way. Take ANY white guy or gal, any white band, that has started performing since 1970, and name one that beats MJ in importance. The Boss? U2? Madonna? Radiohead? Fleetwood Mac? Eagles? Talking Heads? Sex Pistols? One of those appalling bands Genghis listens to? I may actually listen more to some of these bands, but it's really hard to argue that any of them (other than perhaps the Pistols) shaped music more.

    Genghis? Got one? Any? Consider this the gauntlet. Pick it up, survive, and you get to keep Mega-Shark at your house next weekend. (He's really quite nice once you get to know him. Misunderstood.)

    What I find odd here is it feels like it's missing any sense of how MJ shaped music in actual running-time history. I'm MJ's age (though you wouldn't believe it from the hair, the skin, the muscle mass. WOW! Mag-nif-i-cent.) Anyway, the Jackson 5 not only did brilliant pop music, but also did a job on helping tear down the black/white wall. Don't think so? Well.... imagine the Osmonds were the only game in town. Because for kids of a certain age at that time, that was sorta the scene.

    Later, when Off The Wall came out, there were real barriers between black and white music. I was starting college. They had just had the disco sucks record burnings events, and really, the music scene was - a) big white mega-bands, and b) the white punks in rebellion. Funk was pretty much on the margins, Jimi and Sly and Motown and Stevie W were all dead or MIA, and when disco keeled over, it took a lot of black artists down with it.

    Then along came MJ - and not only transformed black pop music, but white pop music too. And yes, there was one other breakthrough black artists of the late 1970's and early 80's - Prince. The only other guy in MJ's class. But the point is, the two of them did a bad cop good cop thing, and dragged millions of white kids with them. No way in hell Prince would ever have gone mainstream if MJ wasn't already opening things up. Prince was the one people knew was dirty and dangerous. It took MJ being out there 24/7 to open the door. And I say this as an enormous Prince fan, who I'd listen to 10 to 1 over MJ.

    Ok. In residence at that time, I was Mr Music. 24/7, room full of people, music on. And I nearly got crucified for playing Off The Wall. But week by week, month by month, you could see it shift - right across the culture. MJ was modern - he wasn't some sad look back at Stax-Motown. He ripped pop music up - black and white - and dropped it 15 years ahead. The stuff was invincibly danceable. Nobody could touch it. Forget about him at the Beat It/Billie Jean peak, he did the heavy lifting with Off The Wall - late 70's, start of the 80's, that's what made it possible.

    And again I'd ask, if not MJ.... ummm.... who hauled pop music out of the land of the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac? There really was a transition there, in pop music, and somebody led it. This post makes as much sense as saying the Sex Pistols weren't all that important to Punk. Or are we saying that Pop music doesn't count, full stop?

    Anyway, by the time of Beat It and Billie Jean, he was just dominant. He'd throw in big crunchy guitars just to prove he could, rock meets pop and black meets white... he'd out-dance anyone... and basically, if MJ didn't build MTV, then ummmm.... again... who did? We're arguing importance and excellence here, but I think that all kinda has to count as important. From 1979-84, I'm not sure anyone else even ranks with him.

    As for "was he musical" --- listen to those demo's mentioned above. Really. No musical chops? OMG. Pull your pants up guys. Excellence? Just look at the list of songs he wrote. You know, you really only need to write 3 songs that make it into EVERYBODY'S Top 1000 before you're considered really quite good. Try this. How many has Springsteen written? Talking Heads? Radiohead? Madonna? (And don't make me name Elvis.) There really aren't that many people who were staggeringly good performers, AND wrote songs - even a few - that good. And yes, MJ went bad, the rot got him. Some musicians are like that. But 5 years at the pinnacle? Not bad.

    What's that? You wish I'd go on? Really?

    Well, screw you. You're a batch of loser-haters who REALLY deserve to have Regina Spektor, Death Cab, Bon Iver, Grizzly Bear or whatever batch of moaners you prefer this week come over to your house and... stay. Playing. Endlessly.

    Don't stop 'til you get enough.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 10:12pm

    I knew this thread was missing something. Thank you, quinn. Can I add Bowie, Nirvana, Floyd, Zeppelin, and the Dead to your list? Maybe Black Sabbath. Dr. Dre?

    I'll put Jackson in and around these folks and the ones you mention. But if David Byrne kicked it, no one would be comparing him to Lennon and Presley. Those comparisons are the ones that irk me. As I wrote, Jackson was the King of Pop, but there's a long distance between the King of Pop and the King of Rock.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 10:57pm

    It's fun to compare. To have to drop the personal connections, loves and hates, and just straight-up rank importance. Like, I love Kurt Cobain and grunge made it acceptable to wear what I always wore. But grunge was an echo of punk, suitably modified - and Cobain, really was just Westerberg in a different shirt.

    With bands like Sabbath, well, they drop off because Zeppelin's already there. When I listen to Zeppelin today, I actually can't believe they did what they did. So they make the Top Ten. The Dead, nope, Dre, nope. Bowie I love cause I was Bromley-born, and Pink Floyd filled my essays at college, but... not Top Ten.

    So I'd put MJ and Zeppelin in there to compete with Elvis, Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Pistols. So which other black artists were that good, that influential? Jimi, Sly, Stevie, Prince, Marvin, Chuck, Lil Richard, JB. I love these games.

    Gonna have to add Jimi and Chuck.

    And Paul Westerberg. Ok, that's my Top 10. Purely on merit, no personal quirks. (Prince is gonna kill me next time I drop by. Shit..)


    by quinn esq on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 12:00am

    Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, the Supremes, Tina Turner, Bob Marley... I suggested Dre not because he means anything to me but because rap and hip-hop are huge music scenes, and he was a progenitor as much as anyone, but maybe there are just no clear leaders in the genres. I can't do top 10. To tough to measure. I'll pick a top 3: Elvis, Dylan, and the Beatles. They're root of the rock tree (if only because they were first). Everyone else is just hanging out in the branches somewhere. Maybe Buddy Holly b/c he was even earlier. Not the Stones though. They have to hang out with the runners up. But maybe that's just because I've never liked the music.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 12:30am

    Ok, Stones and Westerberg out - Aretha and Marley in.

    Just so we're clear, the Top 10 now goes:

    1. Mega-Shark.

    2. The rest.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 12:46am

    gotta give quinn props for smacking genghis and a-man back into next week, totally slamming the premise of this article in a way i couldn't because i don't have enough musical info in my arsenal (but even without quinn's impressive knowledge, i still intuited that calling Jackson overrated and uninfluential - and yes, you can backtrack now G-man but that's what you said - "But let's not confuse influence with importance" - was just some silly playa-hatin driven understandably enough by a dislike of that genre of music - well in G's case a dislike of most everything the masses embrace - and an overwhelming onslaught of hyperventilating coverage for a guy that may or may not have spent the last fifteen years of his life molesting small boys but certainly did very little in the way of creating really good music.)

    in any case, thank you quinn. and as an aside, i totally agree, i listen to zeppelin today and don't understand how people can think they didn't sell their souls to the devil.


    by Deadman on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 2:06am

    Holy selective quotations, Deadman! The full quote was, "I don't deny that Jackson was innovative and influential, that he was a legendary performer, and that he introduced millions of white kids to motown influences. He should be respected and appreciated for his accomplishments (if vilified for his sins). But let's not confuse influence with importance or popularity with excellence."

    Being overrated and being influentual are not mutually exclusive. Being overrated simply entails receiving more credit than one is due. Everything that you and others, including Quinn, have said about Jackson changing the course of pop music and influencing Timberlake and others is true. But that does not make him as important or excellent as the musicians that some folks have been comparing him to, the ones who created and transformed not only pop, but rock music itself.

    And yes, call me a snob if you like, but 80's pop really did suck for the most part. Thank you for leading the way, Michael Jackson.

    Signing out in frustration due to his misunderstood genius,

    G


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 2:51am

    DAVID BOWIE in regards to true influence, importance and musical innovation runs circles around MJ or any of the other  bands/acts just mentioned. He is EASILY the most important solo star Post Beatles.....hands down. ( something that doesnt get recognized enough in North-America)

    BOWIE did everything before MJ..androgyny, videos ( see Ashes to Ashes as example), theatre/dancers/mime ( see 1974 Diamond Dogs Tour)  on stage, ( MJ was heavily influenced by Bowie's "weirdness" in the 70's) the music alone..His late 70s Berlin works paved the way for the cooler music of the 80s/90s...everything from Industrial, New Romantic to Rave and beyond.


    Just ask fellow MJ megastar of the 80s MADONNA who her musical hero is:  Its BOWIE.

    The chameleonic changes Bowie did in the 70s' musically and stylistically made MJ, Madonna and Prince possible in the 80s.........( they were all regular Bowie concert goers when younger)


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:55am

    Cosign. Bowie rocks. Or rocked anyway.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 12:30pm

    U2 is easily more influential, musically, than MJ.


    by Dave Baum (not verified) on Fri, 06/27/2014 - 5:40pm

    I assume you are a specialist...not a lame blogger who should get a life


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 9:25am

    I assume that you are not a dickhead who goes around to lame blogs cleverly telling the bloggers to "get a life."


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 9:50am

    Can this possibly be for real?

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090629/ten-grieving-jackson-fans-commit-suicide-8a3eada.html

     


    by Orlando on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 5:36pm

    Of all the Ghengis "blasphemies" I am impressed that the deicide of Michael Jackson attract the greatest attention...


    by DC Bound (not verified) on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 7:42pm

    How can you say Michael Jackson lack excellence or importance. Dude where have you been for the past 30 years, sleeping under a rock? Michael jackson is one of the most important musical icons of the 20 century if not of all time. The man turned American Pop culture global while breaking down many racial barriers for black artists. Last time i checked Michael was the first artist to sell 100 million records outside of the United States. He not only has the best selling album of all time but 5 of the best selling albums of all time worldwide, 13 guiness book of world records, more awards than any other living or dead artist. He has sold more than 350 million records as solo perfomer and another 275 million as a member of legendary singing group the jackson 5. If that's not excellence what is? Michael may not have been white but he is the greatest and that's something no one can ever take away from him. He deserves our respect. the man worked too hard and sacrificed so much of his personal life to bring joy and great music to the masses. Why can't you admit that even if you don't like him personally. You said something about the media over glorifying him but the last time i have seen positive coverage regarding michael i was around 6 years old and I am now 26. The dishonest and disgraceful media have done nothing but kick dirt and disstort the true genius and legacy of michael jackson. you know what you're right Michael Jackson is not in the same league as Elvis or the beatles Lennon. He is in a league of his own no one can touch him. Rip Michael true king of music and entertainment.


    by cynmans7137 on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 6:01pm

    Latest Comments