Tag Archives: Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson Is Weird: So Fucking What?

Michael Jackson's BadDear Ulric,

A beautiful thing happened to me this weekend and I thought of you. You’re one of the only people I know who will fully appreciate the magic…

With all the Michael Jackson bashing lately everywhere you look, and I’ll admit that he seems to make it pretty easy, I got to thinking about the music. And how everybody has all of a sudden accepted as fact that Off the Wall is a great album, and that Thriller was a real classic. “And it was all downhill from there,” the story goes, as MJ got weirder and weirder and the headlines started focusing on his skin color and his chimps rather than his music.

Continue reading Michael Jackson Is Weird: So Fucking What?

Sounds of Silence

While flipping through channels I chanced upon what appeared to be Michael Jackson. It was hard to tell. The black fedora and falling ringlets obscured the too-white face that contrasted with the black suit, black tie and red shirt that seemed to have been fabricated with a Saran Wrap-like polymer. A group of black-clad dancers behind him mimed his moves. He slipped, slid, skipped, jerked, popped, crossed himself and grabbed his crotch like a possessed clergyman in need of hard time. The music was “Dangerous.” A woman dressed in a black neoprene suit slithered out; there were spear-like protrusions emerging from the suit looking no more menacing than a Nerf product. Her role, implied nasty sexuality notwithstanding, was oddly minor: “Go to stage right and stay there, out of the way of the star.” When all was done, Michael, for it was the erstwhile King of Pop, and Dick Clark gave each other tentative hugs. One, after all, is visibly made of porcelain, and the other is an Elgin Marble relic.

I had chanced upon “American Bandstand’s 50th…a Celebration.” Other performers included Dennis Quaid, who did a version of “Great Balls of Fire,” presumably because he’d starred in the Jerry Lee Lewis biopic of that name. Quaid appeared as though he’d gobbled down every stimulant known to pharmacologists as he ran and rolled pop-eyed around the stage. He and Clark did not embrace. Clark may have had to pull out a cattle prod to protect himself. There were Alanis and KISS (I wondered whether (a) Gene Simmons’ tongue would become dehydrated, given the inordinate amount of time that it spends on his chin and (b) any of the band members had ever fallen from the skyscraping height of their platform shoes.) There were film clips galore, including everyone from Neil Sedaka to Bobby Vinton to the Doors to Jefferson Airplane to Creed to J. Lo.

In all cases, the performers seemed to be lip syncing.

Consider going to a “live” performance by a band you admire. Assume that you know the band entirely from hearing recordings of its music. Now you are going to be in the presence of the group. What do you expect? Often, it’s to hear sounds that are almost identical to those that you have become familiar with from the recording. What you implicitly expect becomes your internal standard. If during the show there is deviation from that norm it could be good (e.g., an extended guitar solo) or bad (e.g., the singer can’t hit that critical note). Still, you are there, sharing the air with that group. There is something about the sheer physicality of the experience.

But what if the singer is lip syncing and the musicians are only pretending to be playing their instruments? They are still there, putting on a performance. And a performance is, after all, nothing more than an act. Do we expect reality in acting, or is that fundamentally an impossibility (i.e., to act is to pretend)? While I know that GloNo readers avoid performances like those of Britney and ‘N Sync like they would Ebola-infected parts of the planet, I submit that performers like them are mainly about physical presence and action, and that their music is actually secondary in their shows: that’s obvious by their costumes and choreography. But the same may be true of even a—dare I say?—Wilco, when there is a desire to hear what Tweedy will actually say between songs. It isn’t all about the singing, it is the being, the sharing of something in that particular space and moment that’s not otherwise available.

So what’s wrong with lip syncing? Audio technology has gotten so sophisticated that there is subtle manipulation of what is heard by the audience: those sounds coming from the stage are not necessarily directly created by vocal chords. Is it “live” if it has been put through not merely a microphone but a microprocessor?

Musicians aren’t who we think they are. They aren’t those people we each create in our minds. In a show on the Bravo channel that I’d caught earlier in the week, “Musicians,” Elvis Costello (which is, of course, a stage name—a made-up, pretend name) was asked whether there was an actual Allison (“Some times I think that I should stop you from talking when I hear the silly things that you say…”). And he replied that there wasn’t, that “she” was actually a composite of women he’d known, a composite, not a someone that I imagined based on the experiences in my life (we all “know” an “Allison,” right?). “She” is simply a character on the list of Dramatis Persona. No Allison.

What do we expect from musicians? When we see them “live,” do they provide any greater promise than the fact that they are there?

I WANNA ROCK WITH YOU — PLEASE?

Michael Jackson is Back. But For How Long?

Johnny Loftus

After the wholesale failures of HIStory and Dangerous, and his increasing reliance on foreign sales receipts to purchase Neverland’s animal feed, it seemed unlikely that Michael Jackson would ever again rise to Thriller levels in the hearts, minds, and dancing feet of Americans. In fact, Jackson’s tenuous grip to his King of Pop throne was seemingly strengthened only by screaming throngs of Japanese schoolgirls (always an impressionable lot — remember, this is the same demographic that went rabid for teen albums by Alyssa Milano and Alanis Morrissette…) and the occasional US fan who, most likely, was also an avid watcher of “Wings” and “Coach” — two long-running sitcoms that no one ever admitted to actually viewing. Nevertheless, Invincible, the latest unassumingly-titled effort by Michael Jackson — and his first new studio album since 1992 — will debut at #1 on next week’s Billboard chart, bolstered by first-week sales of over 360,000 units. Taking into consideration the prevailing cultural view of Jackson as a guy just a few slices short of a loaf, his new album’s early success might suggest it a new name — Inconceivable.

Even his stable of high-priced producers admit the difficulty in navigating the hills and valleys of Jackson’s oeuvre to discover the trail to success with today’s youth. “It’s real weird to see a new generation accepting Mike,” said Rodney Jerkins, guru producer of Brandy, Britney, and now The Gloved One. “That was the mission for all of us [while making the album]: ‘How do we get the younger kids?'” And Jerkins didn’t mess around. His beats for Invincible’s lead single “You Rock My World” find Michael Hee-Hee’ing and Shah-mon’ing over a punchy backing track and a great mid-song loop that will definitely blow up in the clubs. And yet, if you dropped Blu Cantrell or R.Kelly vocals onto the track, it would be just as successful. Despite the best efforts of Jerkins and his hotshot mates, there’s nothing in Jackson’s new work that is as seamless as his 80s heyday. An invisible barrier separates Michael’s trademark MS-DOS vocal delivery from his albums’ Windows XP production techniques, making communication between the two impossible. The hype is in place, sure. There’s a longform music video with big Hollywood stars and extended dance moves. Chris Tucker stops by for a skit or two. And there’s a promotional budget that overtakes the GNP of Finland. But at the heart of it all is a frail-looking eccentric who — whether by his excesses or idiosyncrasies, scandals or disappearing acts — has distanced himself from, er, himself, as well as the American Pop audience.

There’s a pained look in George W Bush’s eyes when he addresses “the ‘maircun people.” He puts on a brave face and makes a go of it, but you get the feeling that he’d rather be back at the D.C. Hooters, pounding hot wings and grabbing waitresses’ asses. It’s similar with Michael Jackson. He’s appeared on the VMAs, TRL, concert specials, and has even waved to his fans (seriously — where did they all come from?) in Times Square. But watching his expression shift from grimace, to sweet smile, to glazed fear, and back to bashful grimace, you can’t shake the notion that The King of Pop would much rather be feeding the goats back at Neverland, or at least hanging out in ultra-moderne downtown Tokyo, where even a swan-clad Bjork wouldn’t get a second look.

He might not have to worry about it much longer.

Invincible‘s big daddy status might not last longer than a few weeks. Britney’s shitstorm of a new album will likely sucker punch Jackson with a giant boxing glove shaped like a dollar sign. After all, Jive Records/Spears have at least as much money as Michael, and they didn’t have to pay off Tito to appear on that Jackson 5 reunion special. It will be interesting to see how long Jackson’s newfound connection to today’s record-buying youth lasts. Because even when he tries to be, Michael just isn’t like the other guys.

Jam on it.

JTL

Give till it hurts

Rock stars unite for 9-11 attacks, but does anyone care?

By Phil Wise

With all the madness surrounding the September 11 attacks, people feel as though they should do something—anything to help. The incredible outpouring has dwarfed even that of the We Are the World spectacle of the early 80s, both in contributions and pomposity. But is it fair to criticize people for trying to help?

Two scathing articles about celebrity benefits to raise money for attack victims question the importance and even motivation of these types of benefits despite their raising of millions of dollars. It makes one wonder if it’s worth the effort to help when all you’ll get is grief.

Most of the criticism of Paul McCartney’s “Concert for NYC” and Michael Jackson’s “What More Can I Give” shows centers on a few things: shameless self-promotion by artists, lack luster performances and a never-ending barrage of preaching.

Jim DeRogatis described the McCartney show as a corporate bloated marathon punctuated with “annoying telethon glad-handing, unbearable bathos and disturbing outbursts of unrestrained blood-lust and blatant jingoism” (jingoism: our hot new buzzword replacing “uber-anything” as THE thing to say at parties—ed.)

DeRogatis continued to bash the Concert for NYC as a just plain boring with “imminently forgettable pop stars doing their awards show shtick.” Even performances by seasoned veterans who’ve built careers on “delivering” were “mostly just incredibly lame.”

And then there’s Jacko’s party, which got such a whipping from Salon’s Eric Lipton I won’t even comment further. Read for yourself.

Now the Beastie Boys join the fray. A press release from Beastie, Adam Yauch, dated October 16, announced the New Yorkers Against Violence (hence forth referred to as NYAV) benefit. The show is scheduled to take place at the Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan on October 28. But with the flak both Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson have taken in recent days, are the Beastie Boys setting themselves up for a sucker punch?

I think it’s safe to say the NYAV will be relatively free of corporate pandering and unrestrained bloodlust, but the telethon glad-handing by way of tolerance preaching could reach new heights. While I agree that intolerance only plays into the hands of those who committed the attacks, most of us and almost certainly EVERYONE who might attend this show, gets it. It’d be like preaching to the choir while the church is burning.

The NYAV line up includes the Beasties playing a “short hip-hop set with Mixmaster Mike,” the Strokes, B-52s, Cibo Matto , Saul Williams, Rivals Schools and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan. Save the Strokes’ almost guaranteed self-promotion and the B52s one-millionth mind numbing attack of “Love Shack,” NYAV isn’t likely to fall into the trap of mediocrity that soaked the Concert for NYC.

Ultimately, all of the performers in each of these benefits deserve some credit. They did pull together to play benefits, surely disrupting touring and recording schedules. In a time when self-congratulating awards shows seem to be on every week, can they even be blamed for less than inspiring appearances and callous promotion? Yes, they can, but they’re trying and here’s to hoping that those associated with the New Yorkers Against Violence benefit don’t come home with a black eye.