I guess I’d attribute that more to Disc 1 being more or less a “greatest hits” album. If disc 1 and 2 were sold seperately I don’t see disc 2 selling 20 million copies. Just my unedjucated guess of course.
That is ever the case with media frenzies. Remember what other news was occurring – and being given short coverage – during the Natalie Holloway coverage?
Doesn’t matter. They know what sells. Celebrity, sells. Sorting out which of umpteen councils of Iranian clerics they’re talking about, not so much. And really, their current MO seems to be cover one story, with a crawl about the other story below it. And they’ve got more pictures of MJ than of Iranian clerics.
But it’s obviously not just happening because it’s a slow news day. There is other news to report. People are just choosing to report on this instead.
Remembering the “good times” is what people generally do following someone’s demise, whether it’s a celebrity or the wacky relative that bit the dust. T’aint all that unusual and I’m surprised that you’re surprised by it.
But that’s part of the genius. I actually think HIStory would have sold millions - 10 million, maybe - just because it was a new MJ release after 4 years. And some new fans would have picked it up - the two lead singles were #1s. But to give people an extra incentive, there’s the first disc - which was a nice addition for those of us who had those songs on vinyl and tape. So completists and more casual fans would buy it… and lo and behold, they put on Disc 2 and find that they like some of that new stuff too.
That’s more or less my rationale for running out to Best Buy in summer '95 to get it. I was cynical enough to not break my neck to get a new MJ record after the trial and Lisa Marie wedding, but that first disc was a helluva incentive. 
Yeah. It would be a bit tacky to come out and say how awesome it is he’s dead.
Also, most of the people who did like him/respect him probably weren’t saying it all the time before he died because…well, why bother constantly talking about someone who isn’t really producing anymore? That is, you can respect someone’s work without thinking about it all the time. There was no reason to point out how brilliant he used to be. And most tabloids aren’t going to say, “Look at the freak, but oh yeah, he used to be super awesome before.”
I was never really into Michael Jackson other than hearing Billie Jean and going “hmm that’s kinda catchy”.
But he was such an enigmatic figure that it’s impossible for me to not pay attention. A big part of it was that he was an entertainer as a kid so his whole life is basically documented for us. We have this adorable kid, grow up to be a handsome man, and then slowly morph into some sort of alien hominid, but still able to put a spell over his audience the whole time. He’s just a fascinating person…
I think really big stars become part of the fabric of our culture. In a way they help define the times we live in.
So when they are suddenly gone most of us feel it even if we were not fans. Its like a part of the world we are so familiar with has changed leaving us feeling a bit like strangers.
Exactly. Someone mentioned Kurt Cobain earlier, but there’s no way that compares. He was only a star for a few years, and even during that time, he was not a fixture in the mainstream media. So there wasn’t much to rehash. MJ is like Elvis and Diana, who also got a lot of media attention after they died because they got a lot of media attention when they were alive. I am mildly surprised that the praise is so OTT, but not surprised by the media circus itself.
Another factor is that many people don’t consider the molestation case to be closed. There was plenty of speculation between then and now, and I suspect that’s a big motivator in watching the coverage. Everyone wants to see and hear it the first time someone brings up the elephant in the room.
And someone will, eventually. I may have said this earlier, but in time, after everyone’s had time to process the death, the Michael Dearest stories will start coming out. From former friends (I’m sure many of the people commenting now consider themselves former friends of MJ), people who worked for him, and, of course, the 12 y/o olive-skinned boys he did whatever he did with.
Heck. U.S. troops pulled out of major Iraqi cities today, where did that fall on the news reports? After reports on Jackson and Billie Mays.
I am not sad about MJ’s death. I think there were many aspects of his life which were sad. I never expected him to live to a ripe old age but his sudden death is still a bit shocking.
I wish the media would lay off a bit but I don’t think we will hear the end of this for a while.
Would it be better to say how creepy he apparently was and a tossed-off, “good riddance?”
ETA: 'Cuz that’s where I am.
I am MJ’s age. I had a crush on him when I was 11 or 12, as well as Donny Osmond. I have followed his carreer, and ultimate spiral downward.
I will always respect his music. It’s brilliant.
His personal life is horrific, especially his appearance. His pederast tendencies have not been convicted, but I believe they are there, and will come out soon enough.
In short, his life is fascinating, and that is why the media can’t - and won’t - back off.
I’m not sad, just voyeuristic.
If you are talking about global appeal, neither of these comes even close to MJ. The thing is his timing was almost perfect. The 80's were a time when vast swathes of the world were opening up economically and politically and vast numbers of people in second/third world countries were absorbing western pop culture for the first time. And MJ was by far the biggest pop star in this period. After his decline, pop music and pop culture fragmented and no one since was remotely as big as he was.
MJ's death is the perfect storm, gigantic global celebrity, utterly weird life and an unexpected,controversial death. I doubt we will ever see the like of it again.Well. You COULD say that. I’m torn. I do think he was extraordinarily creepy, but I also want to remember him as he was. Before he became known as this horribly pervy weird looking guy. The guy in Thriller, the little boy singing in the Jackson 5.
These are not mutually exclusive. MJ had, or still has, a lot of fans. And there has been a lot of media hype.
The reason for the fans is that MJ released some very good music with his name on it and was at times a very good and talented entertainer.
If you want to know the reason for all the media fuss, it’s us - the general public. The editor who puts together a newspaper or a TV news show are in the same business: delivering us to advertisers. The more ‘us’ they deliver, the more they can charge for ads, and the more revenue they pull in. So they print/broadcast whatever people want to read about. If we were collectively indifferent to MJ and wanted to follow lead stories about exciting advances in cement materials science, that’s what they’d print. We get the media we deserve.
Exactly. Both were equally great losses to their respective bands and the rock world in general. Both bands were fundamentally changed after their loss. To dismiss Bonham as “competent” is laughable. A few years ago, I would have made the same comments about Moon as RealityChuck made about Bonham. Now, I think they were equally great, although I still far prefer Bonham.
I mentioned above that I’m not now and never have been a big fan of pop or contemporary rock and some of the biggest groups and singers of all time are virtually unknown to me. Across all genres really; when I was a desk clerk in hotels I was made fun of because I made LL Cool J and another time Reba McIntyre show ID before I’d give them a room key. (Incidentally he was fine with it, she was a bi-atch.)
When I watched KISS (who I know is not pop) perform with Adam Lambert (or vice versa) it occurred to me that KISS has been around for as long as I can remember (checking wiki- I was 7 when they formed) and they’ve had countless tours and reunion tours and albums, and yet I couldn’t name you one of their songs. (As mentioned, I’m not a fan of most contemporary rock music.) The Beatles: I was in my 20s before I “discovered” them, and the Stones much later- I could have named Paint it Black, Satisfaction and Ruby Tuesday (mainly because of the restaurant) before I started listening to them. GUNS AND ROSES- about the only song I know is Sympathy for the Devil and that’s a Stones cover, and the same with most huge bands and singers of my own or earlier times.
Jackson: I couldn’t name you his lesser known stuff, but his hits- I knew all of them. I know the lyrics to most of them. Billie Jean, Beat It, Bad, Black or White, (still think the Culkin rapping part of the video was spooky), Thriller, Man in the Mirror, etc… By shear osmosis I absorbed all these songs because they were played that much. I’d even find myself singing along with them sometimes when driving or they were on at the house.
I think that’s the Big Deal about Jackson ultimately. If you grew up- or even if you were just alive- in the last 40 years, you osmosified him. He was unavoidable. The talent was the ambergris and the weirdness the fragrance that it fixed, but he was inseparable from American pop culture. And the only man who rivals or possibly exceeds him in pop culture is his (pick one or more: former-dead-ex-brief) father-in-law. (If he and Lisa Marie had somehow managed a child the kid would have his own country and major religion by now).
The world being so much different now than in 1977, it’ll be interesting to see how kids born in the next 20 years regard him- if he’ll be like Elvis a mythical figure to those of us who were kids or not yet born when Elvis died or if he’ll be like Nat King Cole or Bobby Darin (a dead singer whose songs you might have heard but that’s about it).
That’s actually about a tie with Sgt Pepper. Mikey will presumably pull ahead as sales spike in the wake of his death; the Fabs will no doubt catch up easily when their catalog gets reissued on 9-9-09.
**What about the music?
Michael Jackson the marketing genius, I get. Michael Jackson the uber-talented and insanely creative dancer, I get. Michael Jackson the fashion king, I get.
But Michael Jackson the musician … that’s a big void to me. Not suggesting that it doesn’t exist, I just have no clue.
If someone were to post a thread about, say, the Beatles, the Dead/Garcia, Robert Johnson, Pink Floyd, or even Vivian Stanshall, I could drone on and on about their creative and artistic input to music evolution — and lots of folks could chime in with music theory, pre- and post production insights, and a host of other nuances and reasons why someone was a muscial genius. Would someone do the same for MJ?
I believe Quincey Jones did a lot of writing/work on his albums (when Q wasn’t dating Starla), but don’t know if that was merely post-production or the driving force behind the music. I know Michael did the singing, but have no idea if his range is that unusual or just the timber/type of voice. I have no idea if MJ played the instruments or orchestrated the music, or how it differed/changed things.
Any takers?
Don’t make me start a new Michael Jackson thread!
They’re doing a 20/20 report on him at nine Friday which I am definitely tuning in for. (I wasn’t sure where to post this, and I wasn’t sure if I should make yet another MJ thread.) Then at 10, they’re doing regular news which includes reports on MJ.