As I think Robot Arm was alluding to, my problem is not so much Michael Jackson getting an award for Artist of the Millennium as it is with the existence of such an asinine category. Particularly when MTV is the organization responsible for doling out the award. MTV’s not so much a measure of greatness and artistic achievement, but a barometer of what teenagers are listening to and more importantly purchasing with their disposable income. Thus, Britney Spears presents the Artist of the Millennium award to Michael Jackson, to possibly provide some kind of pop continuity and comparison for viewers like your kids, who might use Britney’s current fame and ubiquity as a reference for what Jackson once had as the King of Pop. Remember last year when he appeared with N’Sync on stage at (I think) the Video Music Awards?
Michael Jackson has ceased to be the relevant innovator and performer he was with the Jackson Five, and in the glory days of Thriller and Bad. He’s degenerated into the It Boy of the National Enquirer, and, increasingly, the Weekly World News. I don’t know who I would pick for Artist of the Millennium, but Michael Jackson is not the person who comes to mind.
OK, dammit, in the time it took to post that I see that my points concerning the category are made null and void. But did Michael Jackson think he was getting a legitimate award? He does say in his speech:
Other stuff: Jackson was presented with an Artist of the Century award at the 2002 American Music Awards, was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2000, and he received the Best-Selling Pop Artist of the Millennium Award in 2000 and the World Music Awards in Monaco. So maybe no wonder I and a lot of other folks thought it was a real thing. He’s been accepting these awards for years.
I tend to go with World Eater. There was something very weird about the whole thing… Britney said SHE considered him the AOTM, not that she was giving him an award. It how strange to start the show like that. There was something very much not right about it.
Or maybe that’s just automatically true of anything and every thing involving Michael.
I just watched it again. Barring further clarification on what happened from MTV, Michael is insane. Britney clearly said “I consider him the AOM” and on MTV’s website, where I watched the clip, it is described simply as Britney honoring him on his birthday.
Well, there shouldn’t have really been any doubt that the award didn’t exist – “Artist of the Millenium”? Narrowed down to ONE person? Preposterous!
But I was more interested the OP’s teens who were asking “Michael who?” It got me wondering how younger generations see him. A few months ago they televised that “anniversary party performance thing” honoring his contribution to music over the last few decades, meanwhile teens of today are thinking “Michael Jackson? So what?”
I asked a younger co-worker what her general impression of MJ is (she was too young when “Thriller” came out to really remember the hooplah). She only really knows him as a freak whose persona is uncomfortably weird.
Question: Anyone think his career is salvageable? I can’t imagine him being taken seriously again.
Considering the scope of the phenomena he once was, how did he get so far off track? Even without the molestation allegations, I think his career would be the same as it is now. The man (and I use that term loosely) is a walking PR disaster. It amazes me that he went from such a carefully orchestrated success to being an out-of-control freakshow.
The Madonna empire has been really sustained in comparisson (she has successfully reinvented herself for each generation.) With MJ I just shake my head and think “what a mess!”
The really pathetic thing is the groteque lack of humility, the grasping for what once was. So he’s nuts, fine, but to lack anything resembling a grip on reality, to have no clue what “grace” means.
He desperately needs some real friends in his life, not mention some major therapy. And I’m sure he’ll never get either.
The real story of how screwed up he is will only emerge when he’s dead and his kids are writing tell-alls. Assuming they make it that far!
Maybe I’m too cynical, but I think Michael Jackson can come back anytime he gets serious about his music and releases some more hit songs. People will forget about his shortcomings if his next releases go platinum.
Even Elvis could bring in the bucks near the end of his career. The Stones are touring right now, actually. None can scale the heights, artistically or commercially, that they scaled in the past, though, so they’re just has-beens.
Oh, is anyone else incapable of seeing a picture of him without thinking about how horrifying he looks?
My stock answer about MJ is that he’s desperatly mentally ill, but those around him need him to continue to be mentally ill (in order for their particular gravey train to continue), hence no one close will intervene.
the only possability I’ve ever noted was Janet - who, while she’s had troubles, seems to be the most closely resembling ‘normal/healthy’ Jackson around and, most pointedly, has her own well defined career (therefore not needing his $$).
CNN, those dirty devils, have now changed the web page that I linked to last night in the OP. :mad: Last night the article had a big picture of MJ, with a caption that said something like, “Michael Jackson: MTV’s Artist of the Millenium”. Now there’s a picture of Springsteen.
And the paragraph I quoted above, in which it clearly said that it was an award, has now been rewritten to say:
So we weren’t the only ones fooled–so was cnn.com, temporarily.
But a lot of the"product" in the music industry is the artist as well. Put a guy like Ricky Martin in tight, leather pants and have him wiggle his butt around, and you can make millions with an album that is “good” but not “outstanding.”
MJ has become rather shocking in appearance and eccentricity. It’s hard to make an album go platinum if he’s creeping people out so badly that it interferes with basic promotion and sales. He may be at a point where his music is overshadowed by his persona. Example/ I can tell you several “weird stories” that I remember reading about him in the press, but I couldn’t tell you the title of any of the singles he’s released since Bad.
Duck Duck I looked around different on-line new sites from the U.K., Canada and the U.S. and several of them talked about the “award presented to Michael Jackson” as part of their MTV music awards coverage. A few of them updated thier sites throughout the day to say he was presented with a birthday cake (making no mention of an award), but as of this evening a few still have: Perhaps the biggest surprise was when pop queen Britney Spears emerged to give an Artist of the Millennium award to Michael Jackson…
I guess it was confusing, but really… MJ may deserve a plaque on a “Walk of Fame” somewhere, but he’d face pretty stiff competition for the millenium.
He’s also a freakin’ pedophile who decided to have his own kids so he could use them as sex toys who won’t sue him and who will be appalled when they get old enough to realize that people knew, or suspected, and didn’t give a shit.
While not a big fan of most of his musical career, I guess I have never been much for pop music. Still, being a perv and a nut case shouldn’t void one’s musical or artistic abilities.
Wasn’t Socrates accused of buggery of young boys? If not him, I’m willing to wager that someone (or many someones) who have contributed much to something for which they will ever be rememberd has been just as big a freak as whacko Jacko.
As for musician of the century, well bullshit. I’d say for straigh musicianship in the pop music genre Prince is a better choice (and nearly as freaky). For overall influence and impact Bob Dylan or maybe Leonard Cohen or Tom Waits (ok, maybe Waits is a good example of a Cohen influence artist) would be a better option. But again, I betray the fact that I’m not too into pop music. I’m just certain that Jackso wasn’t the best choice, but he may have been someone who was guaranteed to show up and therefore he was the programs “best choice”. Still arguing the subjective is mostly futile so I’ll jump off the soap box.
Isn’t his allegedly nutty behavior an effective means of keeping his name in the news? As such, I have to consider each of these “blowups” as simply a ploy to keep him in the public eye while he tries to scrape together another gold or platinum album. Since his best days have probably passed, I expect he’ll eventually morph into something resembling Elizabeth Taylor or Zsa Zsa Gabor, i.e. famous for being famous, and not for any major artistic work within the last few decades.
I’ll bet he’s kicking himself for not thinking up going on a shuttle mission before that guy from N’Sync.
