Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Just How Old Was Michael Jackson?
Even moreso than his
fellow '58ers Madonna and Prince, Michael Jackson had a
long and bizarre relationship with age. He was old enough to be in
the public eye for more than four decades, young enough to live in
a children's zoo. He recorded his first number-one
single just two months after man first walked on the moon, yet
sang like a castrato and surrounded himself with tweens. Young
enough to have never developed a beer gut, old enough to have a
decline phase lasting a full quarter-century. So just how old was
Michael Jackson?
Michael Jackson was older than Appalachian wanderluster Mark Sanford, older than beloved Slate columnist Eliot Spitzer, and older than the 44th president of the United States. He was older than silver-haired Congressman Mike Pence, silver-bearded Nespresso pitchman George Clooney, and silver-tongued trial lawyer Erin Brockovich. Remember John Kennedy, Jr., the George magazine publisher who died in a plane crash 10 years ago? He was younger than Michael Jackson. As are Magic Johnson, Tai Babilonia, and Stan Van Gundy. Not only was Michael Jackson older (though perhaps less cryogenically enhanced) than Glenn Reynolds, David Frum and Michael Fumento, he was older than Randi Rhodes, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and even ancient soul Eric Alterman. I don't know if that hurts you, helps you, or makes you reach even quicker for the Demerol.
Speaking of Bruce Springsteen, I presume many in my mourning cohort of Generation Xers who grew up listening to dinosaur rawk presume that it was The Boss who first done funked up "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." As I (alas!) only recently discovered, Michael, who was a musical genius before T-ball age (and before there was T-ball), had Bruce beat by a half-decade at least.
Matt Welch|6.26.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Older than Phil Niekro was when he retired.
I was waiting to see how long my pilfery would pass
undetected....
Wade|6.26.09 @ 11:28AM|#
I am the same age as Michael Jackson. I could never understand how his little whiny ass could make the pubescent girls my 7th grade homeroom wet their pants.
Wade|6.26.09 @ 11:35AM|#
And still bitter about it, too, I guess.
Naw, that ended along time ago, when he started to look like Diana
Ross.
|6.26.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Older than me, anyway.
Spitzer's also the
Whore Critic for The New York Times, don't
forget.
I'm surprised at the public reaction. I thought we were upset with
MJ for his bad behavior. Is all forgiven now? We are a fickle and
emotional people.
|6.26.09 @ 11:45AM|#
I cannot recall a time (EVARRR!) when I did not detest Michael
Jackson and the obnoxious racket which emanated therefrom.
Good riddance; have fun with Saddam.
Jeff P|6.26.09 @ 11:47AM|#
The man took advantage of and flagrantly abused copyright law,
and his squating rights on tens of thousands of songs earned him
millions, which he then lost.
I keep hearing the word "shocked" used in news coverage. The guy
subjected himself to numerous elective invasive surgeries involving
curculatory rerouting. He slept in a hyperbaric chamber, bringing
himself to the edge of the bends nightly. He was an afficianado of
enough alternative medicines that he was a monthly staple in
Skeptic magazine through most of the 90s. At the age of 50 he
decided to commit his bleached, skeletal body to a rigorous
bodybuilding regimen. Quite frankly, Morton Downey Jr's death was
more shocking.
|6.26.09 @ 12:09PM|#
I'm honestly amazed by those of you who contend that his music sucked. Michael Jackson was a looney, but he was a talented looney. A very talented looney.
Xeones|6.26.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Just How Old Was Michael Jackson?
Old enough to know better.
Epi's about the right age to have spent a night at the
Neverland Ranch.
EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED
|6.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Episiarch,
Talented, but not walk-on-water talented. He was a pop star par
excellence, but a pop star nonetheless.
Even the great can be overrated. Shakespeare. Michael Jordan.
General Zod. Well, maybe not the latter.
ed,
Hey, name one other singer who had the guts to sing a song about a
rat?
|6.26.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I heard somebody (i forget whom) last night talking about how MJ
changed the face of music. I certainly agree but thought it a very
unfortunate choice of words.
I don't know what fucked him(MJ) up so much but I agree with Epi
(as he always so graciously agrees with me) that Michael Jackson
was a man of incredible musical talents.
ed|6.26.09 @ 12:30PM|#
ed,
Hey, name one other singer who had the guts to sing a song about a
rat?
Indeed. The fact that Ben was only five and shared a bed with
Michael is another story.
|6.26.09 @ 12:37PM|#
I question degree of his talent. No doubt he could sing and
dance. But how many people did it take to produce his albums? Did
he produce any of them? How many musicians were on them? Did he do
any arranging, writing, or scoring? Did he play any instruments?
Did he sing what other people already wrote like that lame-ass
American Idol shit?
Compare his records to say, Meddle by Pink Floyd which was written,
produced, arranged, played, and sung by only the four members:
Rick, Nick, Dave, and Roger. I'm sure they did everything but the
engineering. Those guys were talented.
|6.26.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"I don't know if that hurts you, helps you, or makes you reach
even quicker for the Demerol."
Christ, what an asshole.
|6.26.09 @ 12:50PM|#
By the way, Matt, pethidine isn't the best thing to reach for considering its neurotoxicity.
|6.26.09 @ 12:51PM|#
The thought of being fisted by Michael while he was wearing one of those rhinestone gloves makes my sphincter pucker.
Heavy Metal Musician|6.26.09 @ 12:56PM|#
I question degree of his talent. No doubt he could sing and
dance. But how many people did it take to produce his albums? Did
he produce any of them? How many musicians were on them? Did he do
any arranging, writing, or scoring? Did he play any instruments?
Did he sing what other people already wrote like that lame-ass
American Idol shit?
He didn't write the song Thriller, but almost all of his other hits
were him. He was also VERY heavily involved in every aspect of
production and mixing. He often had collaborators - Quincy Jones
was huge.
But you're missing the point if you question his talent. He had a
way of connecting with people through music. It doesn't matter
where on the globe you reside, the power of his music could still
be felt. Hell, I can't stand that kind of music, but I still enjoy
listening to him.
Sure he was a weirdo, but most definitely a talented weirdo!
ed|6.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
[H]ow many people did it take to produce his albums? How
many musicians were on them? Did he do any arranging, writing, or
scoring? Did he play any instruments? Did he sing what other people
already wrote?
Few (if any) musicians attempt to do it all. Division of labor is
as valid a concept in the entertainment biz as it is in the wider
world. It took Pink Floyd years to produce (some would say
"overproduce") an album. Not very efficient.
Rhywun|6.26.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I can attest that 50 is way old enough to develop a
beer gut.
Also... how far back does "Generation X" go??? I was 8 years old
when Farrah made it big and I'm pretty sure I'm Gen X.
ChrisO|6.26.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Strictly speaking, Generation X starts in 1963 or '64.
Culturally speaking, I'd say that consists of people born roughly
between 1960 and 1975.
I was 15 when Thriller hit, and I already thought of
myself as too old for his music. The goofy fashions and the
goody-two-shoes shtick seemed aimed squarely at the
10-year-olds.
alligator_legs|6.26.09 @ 3:04PM|#
@Troy: "Compare his records to say, Meddle by Pink Floyd which
was written, produced, arranged, played, and sung by only the four
members: Rick, Nick, Dave, and Roger. I'm sure they did everything
but the engineering. Those guys were talented."
I love the folks who think fans of the biggest music star since
Elvis are sipping some strong Kool-Aid. There isn't an ether strong
enough to brainwash hundreds of millions of fans around the globe
to all feel the same way abt MJ: he was a musical genius. And
history will attest to that. Folks who argue otherwise are the
rare, curmudgeonly exception to the norm. The man died and is
certainly due respect for having lived an exceptional life,
whatever his shortcomings.
|6.26.09 @ 3:34PM|#
It would be curious to see album sales between MJ and Pink
Floyd. Thriller vs Dark Side of the Moon. Sure Pink Floyd is/was
talented and some of the early stuff is of the highest artisic
caliber. But biggest music star is more about sales than
artistry.
I don't know if I would call MJ a musical genius, performace
genius, yes. The musical genius behind MJ was Quincy Jones for the
most part.
|6.26.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Quincy Jones gave us the theme from Sanford and Son. That alone places him in a pantheon of some sort.
|6.26.09 @ 4:06PM|#
ut you're missing the point if you question his talent. He
had a way of connecting with people through music. It doesn't
matter where on the globe you reside, the power of his music could
still be felt.
I love the folks who think fans of the biggest music star since
Elvis are sipping some strong Kool-Aid. There isn't an ether strong
enough to brainwash hundreds of millions of fans around the globe
to all feel the same way abt MJ: he was a musical
genius.
First of all, I do get the point. Second, I didn't say he wasn't
talented. I merely questioned his degree of talent. Upon learning
additional facts, i.e. the degree to which he was involved in the
process, the more I will acknowledge his talent.
Third, I disagree that there is any correlation whatsoever which
how many people MJ touched (with his music) and how talented he
was. Frank Zappa (someone I can't stand) was way more musically
talented than MJ. Zappa probably could give a pretty good
explication of the differences in Dorian and Ionian or Aeolian mode
or chord resolution. I doubt MJ even knew what they were.
I seriously doubt he wrote any music. To be a "musical genius" one
must have a modicum familiarity with musical theory or play an
instrument, or actually, like, you know, write music. I've never
seen any evidence MJ could do, or did any of these. That he could
grind his hips in sync with music that someone else wrote doesn't
make him a musical genious. And that millions of retards purchased
said crap, doesn't make you a genious.
Again, I am not saying that he wasn't talented. All I am saying is
that in the spectrum of musical talent, he doesn't deserve the
godhood that is being bestowed upon him. If someone could show me
he knew the difference between the bass and treble clef, I'll give
him some credit. But he certainly wasn't a genius. That belongs to
David Gilmor.
So, to recap.... MJ was a great dancer, a great singer, didn't
write any music, sang on some catchy, though superficial pop songs
that will be remembered more because of their popularity rather
than their technical viruosity, was a freak, was a pedophile, and a
monumentally terrible dad (anyone who leave their kids with 1/2
billion dollars of debt is a monumental doucebag).
Oakie|6.26.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"As I (alas!) only recently discovered, Michael, who was a
musical genius before T-ball age (and before there was
T-ball)"
T-ball predates MJ, dipshit. The way you make shit up, you ought to
be writing for the NYT.
|6.26.09 @ 4:22PM|#
"""Frank Zappa (someone I can't stand) was way more musically
talented than MJ. Zappa probably could give a pretty good
explication of the differences in Dorian and Ionian or Aeolian mode
or chord resolution. I doubt MJ even knew what they were.
""""
True, and if you asked MJ about said difference he could whip out
some amazing dance shit and you would be like, wow that was
amazing, what were we talking about again.
Jackson will be remembered for being an amazing performer, and he
should be. He was not the musical genius that Zappa was, not even
close. And the pedophillia was never proven in court. ;-)
DHS Thinks I\'m a Terrorist.|6.26.09 @ 4:36PM|#
"yet sang like a castrato"
Perhaps he actually was one.
|6.26.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Just because his music was popular, doesn't mean he was talented. It just means he had good PR. I do think he was talented, but talent and record sales don't always have anything to do with one another. Some of the most talented people in the world have never sold a single record/cd.
Gene Berkman|6.26.09 @ 4:58PM|#
I am 8 years older than Michael Jackson, and I am solvent. All of a sudden, I feel GREAT!
Rhywun|6.26.09 @ 7:25PM|#
But biggest music star is more about sales than
artistry.
Has anyone come close to conquering both feats since the Beatles? I
doubt it.
|6.27.09 @ 3:10PM|#
I love these comments, especially the fisticuffs between Troy
& TrickyVic over Zappa. I adored MJ between the ages of
10-13... His voice was sensational in those times; great pitch and
phrasing and diction. After that I loved and continue to love
Zappa.
Has any generation produced as its signal talent a more pathetic
figure than Michael Jackson? What else could he have done in
adulthood to convey simple human incompetence?
The
Segal piece in the NYT today makes the point that this was
mostly about market penetration. He sold all those records in the
80s because the distribution channels had room for something like
that, whereas nowadays our customized amusements prevent such
occurrences. And then he says: "But there is something sad about
our infinite menu of options."
Maybe not so much. Let's hope that nobody will be allowed to become
as embarrassing a figure as Michael Jackson, either.
|10.5.09 @ 7:44AM|#
Crid,
You said "embarrassing figure"?
Look how many people,music artists,radio stations,tv shows,news
shows,etc.. are on Michaels D!ck now!!!
That's what's embarrassing,that when he was alive,noone wanted to
give him respect,but now everyone wants a peice of the Michael
Jackson Pie.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245