Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Michael Jackson dead.

Rate this topic


TheEgoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael Jackson was a phenomenal entertainer. Even if his music was mediocre, which is debatable, what he did was combine the art of dancing with his music and he created some clever music videos. (Wasn’t he the inventor of the moon walk?) In many ways I think his music projected a positive sense of life, which in a way makes him a throw back to 1950s rock and roll.

He also had a reputation of being a very nice guy to everyone he met.

As to the tragic aspects of his life, I do doubt he was untoward to others or children, but it seems he was on a path of reality evasion augmented by lots of wealth – similar to Howard Hughes – for whatever reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's singing really doesn't prove that they are great people, their life and actions do.

And what is it that you think is left in an artist's life or actions if you take away the art? "don't look at what he has created his whole life and what he devoted his life for - look at his actions!"

Second point: Art reveals a whole lot about the artist - more so than other kinds of job. It is definitely a valid source of information about the artist's personality.

small point: I think Ayn Rand thought the same - if you ever read her article about Marilyn Monro, she talks about the actress's character - the kind of character she projects. How do you suppose someone sees and recognizes these things when they only have the person's acting and some interviews available? A man needs to develop this kind of "vision", but if he does, it opens up a gigantic world of information.

This is how Roark could recognize who Dominique was from a single glance, and the other way around. In fact there is a sentence in The fountainhead said by Toohey, about how a person's first response to a face reveals a lot about them. Anyway, I'll stop at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's singing really doesn't prove that they are great people, their life and actions do.

Aren't you forgetting that Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal?

Art can say a lot about what a person's state of mind while creating that art was like. Of course, many people change, and it's clear that Michael Jackson changed quite a lot during his life. When he stopped making music, things started getting really weird.

While Michael Jackson was a great entertainer, a good singer (for what it's worth), and invaluable for his contributions to the art of the music video, I think the most important characteristic of Michael Jackson was his dancing. Michael Jackson's bubblegum style of dance, which fused so many different styles so seamlessly and provokingly, was a really personal and unique aesthetic. Michael Jackson's character WAS his dancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a good singer (for what it's worth)

Enough with the backhanded complements in this thread. Michael Jackson was a great singer and I thought his voice was awesome, soulful, and unique! Try reaching those notes he did in Thriller without using falsetto. He hits those notes like a bomb.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is it that you think is left in an artist's life or actions if you take away the art? "don't look at what he has created his whole life and what he devoted his life for - look at his actions!"

Second point: Art reveals a whole lot about the artist - more so than other kinds of job. It is definitely a valid source of information about the artist's personality.

small point: I think Ayn Rand thought the same - if you ever read her article about Marilyn Monro, she talks about the actress's character - the kind of character she projects. How do you suppose someone sees and recognizes these things when they only have the person's acting and some interviews available? A man needs to develop this kind of "vision", but if he does, it opens up a gigantic world of information.

This is how Roark could recognize who Dominique was from a single glance, and the other way around. In fact there is a sentence in The fountainhead said by Toohey, about how a person's first response to a face reveals a lot about them. Anyway, I'll stop at that.

You can't look at art and draw objective conclusions regarding the artist, but you can look at facts and do that.

I happen to agree with Ayn Rand's view of Marilyn Monroe's persona, and the character she projects (which is the character she aspired to have, or held as an ideal). That character reflects Marilyn Monroe, the person, and her values, in my view. In other words, in my subjective opinion, it is not a fake persona, that she put on because her bosses told her to. But I can't prove this, the way I can prove that MJ was all that I said he was, in my previous post. We don't have a means of analyzing art rationally, to the point where we can draw factual conclusions about someone's personality: all we can do is believe the artist, or not, based on an at least partially subjective judgment.

I disagree with your view of Michael Jackson's art, and how much it reflects his own personality. I think that like most pop singers, his videos and songs were packaged to appeal to a large audience, not to accurately reflect the artist's vision of the World and himself in it. But even without taking that into account, the art itself does not appeal to me: it seems childish, and commonplace. And I can't imagine how you could convince me that I'm wrong, by explaining it--not because I'm being elitist, mind you, I'm the guy who watches Tarantino movies religiously, and likes Lily Allen's new song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I can't prove this, the way I can prove that MJ was all that I said he was,

All you said was he likes children and he had plastic surgery. I don't give a fuck about that. I said I liked some of his music in my first post in this thread but after listening to more of his songs I realize that this guy had many great songs. I would much rather to listen to Michael Jackson sing and perform than the Beatles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather to listen to Michael Jackson sing and perform than the Beatles.

I wouldn't. I like some of his songs, but much prefer the Beatles. Nevertheless, he was certainly a great musician and dancer. How odd though to see a grown man with such an immature attitude toward life and the choices he made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't. I like some of his songs, but much prefer the Beatles. Nevertheless, he was certainly a great musician and dancer. How odd though to see a grown man with such an immature attitude toward life and the choices he made.

I never did like the Beatles with the exception of a few songs. It sounded as if they were high when they created their records and 'low and behold' I come to find out that they were high. Also I didn't think Beatles voices were all that impressive. Rather ordinary and plain.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One pathetic detail about Michael Jackson's life, which doesn't seem to be getting enough attention, is that MJ's closest "friend" for the past few years has been the "psychic" fraud Uri Geller.

For a little bit of background on MJ's closest friend, here's a YouTube clip of James Randi talking about Mr. Geller:

James Randi Discussing "Psychic" Uri Geller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One pathetic detail about Michael Jackson's life, which doesn't seem to be getting enough attention, is that MJ's closest "friend" for the past few years has been the "psychic" fraud Uri Geller.

For a little bit of background on MJ's closest friend, here's a YouTube clip of James Randi talking about Mr. Geller:

James Randi Discussing "Psychic" Uri Geller

I think that's because people are more interested in his amazing positive achievements. I don't see any point to dwelling on the negative. The guy isn't holding elected office where his character can affect you. I mean Kurt Cobain was nuttier, but people still value his work.

Yeah, it is real commonplace for someone to sound like this...

I think his video Thriller is great. The girl in it, Ola Ray, was a Playboy Playmate, btw.

Edited by Thales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's because people are more interested in his amazing positive achievements. I don't see any point to dwelling on the negative.

I mentioned Uri Geller and his "friendship" with MJ, because I seem to be seeing a lot of him on television. I'm a little fed up with Geller being spoken to by news reporters as if he were anything other than a parasitic leech who took advantage of MJ's naivete.

As far as positive achievements, I'd rather be hearing from Quincy Jones or Berry Gordy if they are still around and available for comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned Uri Geller and his "friendship" with MJ, because I seem to be seeing a lot of him on television. I'm a little fed up with Geller being spoken to by news reporters as if he were anything other than a parasitic leech who took advantage of MJ's naivete.

Yes, I know about Uri Geller. Good point.

As far as positive achievements, I'd rather be hearing from Quincy Jones or Berry Gordy if they are still around and available for comment.

Understood, but this thread is dedicated to MJ because he just passed away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is real commonplace for someone to sound like this...

There's more to art than hitting notes. I was commenting on his music as a whole, which doesn't do anything for me. Someone like Johnny Cash couldn't sing for shit, and yet I'll take his music and his cracking voice anytime over Michael Jackson's, Withney Houston's or Celine Dion's, who are all very good singers, because I understand and believe him. I don't believe anything most pop singers say or do.

I mean Kurt Cobain was nuttier

Was he? What did he do that was so nutty?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more to art than hitting notes. I was commenting on his music as a whole, which doesn't do anything for me. Someone like Johnny Cash couldn't sing for shit, and yet I'll take his music and his cracking voice anytime over Michael Jackson's, Withney Houston's or Celine Dion's, who are all very good singers, because I understand and believe him.

When it comes to music qua music, I agree with you, but I think you have to judge the whole thing, since he also included dance and video, and his singing prowess has to be taken into account as well.

I don't believe anything most pop singers say or do.

Interesting ... what do you mean by this?

Was he? What did he do that was so nutty?

He wasted himself on drugs and committed suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more to art than hitting notes.

I didn't say that there wasn't.

Most of the time, I have to be able to like the voice of the singer, lyrics, and the melody of the song in order for me to like the song though...and if you can't feel Michael Jackson in that audio of him singing live then we will have to agree to disagree. The guy was only 12-13 at the time and was singing his heart out. I could feel it and I can definitely recognize talent when I hear it. You say that you are talking about Michael Jackson's music as a whole but I doubt that you've even listened to Michael Jackson enough for you to get 'a whole' picture.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting ... what do you mean by this?

All performers should be great actors, and great actors should understand the feelings and state of mind they are supposed to project, and make the audience suspend disbelief. With most pop singers, that just doesn't come across on TV and on records-where it counts most. There are exceptions (the latest was Amy Winehouse, I think, and she wasn't really pop), but very rare.

For instance, I have no problem believing Lara Fabian at the beginning of this clip, when she mentions sincerity. But if that was Celine Dion or Mariah Carey, you know it would come across as contrived:

Jake, your sense of life puzzles me at times. <_<

Sarcasm is a bad thing?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is certain: the man was very productive, and his presence on this planet brought a great deal of joy to millions, perhaps billions of people. These things alone should be enough to earn him some respect and at least a modicum of sadness at his passing. He'll be missed in the way we'll miss Gates when he goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...