Happy 50th Birthday Michael Jackson!

[davethesailor]

Well the King of Pop is 50 years old today. It's interesting that both Madonna and Michael are just a few days of age apart.

As usual, the coverage of Michael is just ridiculous. For example, have a look at this report from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7448908.stm

It shows a graph of his ups and downs and ends on the lowest point in 2003 at his arrest. it makes me mad, why can't they move on a few years and show the graph going up with his complete acquittal?

[Jim]

Whats it like being 50 Dave?

[Simon R]

It's such a shame that the only official "thing" to mark this is the release of yet-another Best Of. Surely the third in the past 5 years? Couldn't tgey have just repackaged the last one in a slip-case?

[Lord President]

What part of him is 50?

[Si Hunt]

He's acheived a lot, but we can't celebrate it because it's been celebrated so much in the past and he refuses to come up with anything knew. We can't watch the "Billie Jean" video yet again and think how great it is because we're thinking "Oh God, not AGAIN!". Ditto another bar of "Beat It" or that shot of him morphing in "Thriller" or any of the other clips they trot out. He needed to celebrate being 50 with something new, and that's not going to appear.

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

It shows a graph of his ups and downs and ends on the lowest point in 2003 at his arrest. it makes me mad, why can't they move on a few years and show the graph going up with his complete acquittal?

Well a lot of people considered it was the best justice money could buy. He's innocent in the same way OJ Simpson was also innocent.

He may well have won the law court battle, but in the trial in the public eye a lot of the jury are still out, with many decidedly thinking "guilty".

[Si Hunt]

None of which means he is guilty. Judging by the "evidence" at the trial, which amounted to the testimony of a proven liar and fraudster and little else, his expensive lawyer barely had to break sweat to earn his huge fee.

Si.

[Antony Cox]

Riciculous though it sounds, in this age of instant global communication on an unprecidented scale, being proven not guilty in a court of law doesn't mean that the 'worldwide jury' is going to agree with that verdict.

Mud sticks, and unfortunately MJ is never, ever going to shake off his percieved image. The fact that he is unarguably a very strange person doesn't help.

[WhiteCrow]

I think the other problem is that this isn't the first time such accusations have surfaced. Didn't he pay off the family of the boy who made a previous claim?

Add to that, the whole claim he's never had any plastic surgery, and his face is naturally whitening. Personally I don't believe a word he says.

[Carol Baynes]

He hasn't released a decent record since 1983 is what concerns me. (I do admit that I own a copy of "Bad", but it hasn't aged well.)

[Captain Tancredi]

On balance, probably fair to say that he had about 5-10 years in the sun and then another 10-15 trading on them.

The problem with his trial and acquittal is that it's been something of a Pyrrhic victory- while he was cleared of all charges, so much dirty laundry was aired in court that a picture of a very damaged individual emerged, and I don't think he has the kind of talent which can reinvent itself at his time of life- you can't imagine him going away and trying a completely new style, for example.

[P-Bal]

I have no time for him and quite frankly it's hard to say he's relevant anymore when he just repackages and re-releases old tat.

Thank goodness LaToya has stuck by him. Ish.

[Pip Madeley]

He hasn't released a decent record since 1983 is what concerns me. (I do admit that I own a copy of "Bad", but it hasn't aged well.)

He's brought out some good songs though, I love "Remember The Time" from 1991

[Si Hunt]

Add to that, the whole claim he's never had any plastic surgery, and his face is naturally whitening. Personally I don't believe a word he says.

It's quite fair to not trust someone if they have lied, but... isn't this a bit like someone lying about their age, and using this as a basis to refute their claim that they didn't rape someone? You know, there are fibs and there are lies.

On balance, probably fair to say that he had about 5-10 years in the sun and then another 10-15 trading on them.

Well his career was already 13 years old when he recorded the biggest selling album OF ALL TIME. Four years later, "Bad" sold twenty five million copies worldwide. "Dangerous", twenty three years into his career, sold even more. Do we even need to skip forward to "HIStory", which like all it's predecessors, got to number one and spawned around seven hit singles? How is this "trading" off past glories?!

He hasn't released a decent record since 1983 is what concerns me. (I do admit that I own a copy of "Bad", but it hasn't aged well.)

See above. Carol's welcome to her opinion, but that's all it is. Jackson was phenomenally, massively successful until 2001, despite this bizarre effort to erase all his post-"Thriller" acheivements from history.

I don't think he has the kind of talent which can reinvent itself at his time of life- you can't imagine him going away and trying a completely new style, for example.

This is an interesting point, which I partly agree with. I believe he is talented enough to change his style, but I don't think he has the initiative. He's too scarred, temperamental and surrounded by "yes" men to muster the drive. I'm pretty sure he's recording all the time, and it's possibly brilliant, but then it doesn't come out. Who can say why? There are a hundred likely reasons.

Si.

[Carol Baynes]

Well his career was already 13 years old when he recorded the biggest selling album OF ALL TIME. Four years later, "Bad" sold twenty five million copies worldwide. "Dangerous", twenty three years into his career, sold even more. Do we even need to skip forward to "HIStory", which like all it's predecessors, got to number one and spawned around seven hit singles? How is this "trading" off past glories?!


See above. Carol's welcome to her opinion, but that's all it is. Jackson was phenomenally, massively successful until 2001, despite this bizarre effort to erase all his post-"Thriller" acheivements from history.

Well, I'm cutting Ian some slack as he probably doesn't have the dates and times etched into his brain like some music geek like me.
But it's not about how many copies of his recordings he's sold though is it, it's also about how good they are. Now that of course is subjective, but are the likes of "Blood on the dancefloor", "Rock my world" and "Earth song" really better than tracks such as "Don't stop 'til you get enough", "Billie Jean" or "Beat it"....I'd say not but each to their own.

Jackson was still a feature in the worldwide charts until fairly recently, as you say. But has he really been doing that well. His singles are not the hits they were, and by that I'm refering to overall sales and chart duration. Having a top ten placing is often misleading, as the single might not be in the charts for that long.

I'd say he hasn't always been trading off past glories, but he does seriously milk his album releases far beyond what most artistes would (and could get away with). I remember "Bad" coming out in 1987 and he was still milking it for singles in '89. The only reason "Liberian girl" got to no.13 was because it was a Jackson single, the lower chart placing probably indicated most of the interested customers already had it on the album.
He's continued to do this for some years, and the volume of singles from 'HIStory' backs this up, but it fails to hide the fact that he's not that prolific and it's actually quite refreshing to not have had any 'new' releases from him in a while. Who knows, he might surprise me next time!

[Si Hunt]

but are the likes of "Blood on the dancefloor", "Rock my world" and "Earth song" really better than tracks such as "Don't stop 'til you get enough", "Billie Jean" or "Beat it"....I'd say not but each to their own.

Exactly, it's an opinion, but then so is everyone's opinion on "Thriller" and "Off The Wall". There's no distinction. What you can say is that his songs right up to (and including) "HIStory" were popular entirely on their own merit, and NOT because he's called Jackson. Okay, I'll give you "Blood on the Dancefloor" because that exactly proves my point and it probably IS, in hindsight, the moment where he stopped selling because the music was good and only because of his name. That single went straight to Number 1 - it then dropped to #7 the next week. "Earthsong" was at number 1 for (off the top of my head) around 6 weeks, over the highest record selling weeks of the year. You don't get THAT kind of popularity 'piggybacking' earlier successes - the only possible cause could be that a LOT of people loved the song. I know I did, and still do to this day. I genuinely still can't watch the video without crying. And it's MILES better, IMO of course, than anything off "Off the Wall".

Jackson was still a feature in the worldwide charts until fairly recently, as you say. But has he really been doing that well.

Until the great 2001 flop, Yes! HIStory was the biggest selling double album of all time. I was a singles-buying sixth former during that album's release, and we all loved it. He was everywhere, and the album (or at least in hindsight, the singles) were every bit as good as anything that had gone before. In fact, we liked them more, and so did the singles buying public, just like they lapped up his previous works. There are problems with the album, but since "Dangerous" he'd taken to making them overlong. There were always enough decent tracks to make them worthwhile though. But yes, he really was doing that well until "Invincible" (and there are quite feasible reasons why that fizzled out, to do with publicity and planning). In terms of sales, popularity and everything else that you can measure up to an individuals opinion.

His singles are not the hits they were, and by that I'm refering to overall sales and chart duration. Having a top ten placing is often misleading, as the single might not be in the charts for that long.

But everything up to the point where he gave up WAS in the charts for ages. There were no "token Top 10's based on fanbase" until "Blood on the Dancefloor". "Earthsong" was his biggest hit for years, and it was the third single release from the album! He'd never had that kind of single popularity before.

I'd say he hasn't always been trading off past glories, but he does seriously milk his album releases far beyond what most artistes would (and could get away with). I remember "Bad" coming out in 1987 and he was still milking it for singles in '89. The only reason "Liberian girl" got to no.13 was because it was a Jackson single, the lower chart placing probably indicated most of the interested customers already had it on the album.
He's continued to do this for some years, and the volume of singles from 'HIStory' backs this up, but it fails to hide the fact that he's not that prolific and it's actually quite refreshing to not have had any 'new' releases from him in a while. Who knows, he might surprise me next time!

This is interesting because, yes, he does, but I don't see why this is connected at all with "milking" or a decline in popularity. Since "Bad" (and even "Thriller", 80% of which was a single) Jackson's album strategy has been to release many, many singles, promoting the album slowly so it becomes a gradual seller while he takes it out on a world tour. It's just something he used to do, and it always worked pretty well. HIStory always used to pop back into the albums Top 10 every time another single got released, and I remember really appreciating what a fantastic single "Stranger In Moscow" was when it came out. Astoundingly, no-one really paid much attention to "Earthsong" til it was the third single, and it became one of his most popular singles ever (and first Christmas number 1, even though it was about the destruction of life on Earth!). It's an interesting strategy, by no means unique to him, but I fail to see that it demonstrates any kind of decline. Of course later singles like "Liberian Girl" or "Gone Too Soon" don't do as well - most people have them on the album. But it does persaude the last few people who haven't got the album to go out and buy it, as demonstrated by minor surges in album sales when they come out. He wouldn't do it otherwise.

I guess you could say it "hides" him not being prolific... but he did an album about every 4 or 5 years. They were always pretty good, so it probably took a year or two to write and record, not to mention planning and prepping all the promotion and videos... he then toured them for two years, had a year off, and started all over again. Everything Jackson was about, what he WAS, was bigger, better, more spectacular. That took time to do. 2 years from the end of one tour to the release of a new album isn't that long to wait, and I'd guess from 1983 to 2001 he was touring or recording pretty much constantly. It's just the SIZE of what he aspired to do took time to plan and execute. Hardly workshy, was he?

The only thing THAT demonstrates is a possible reason for the failure of "Invincible" because he stopped promoting singles and putting effort into videos after the second single "Cry". Although horribly bloated with fluffy r'n'b material, and quite frankly home to many absolute stinkers, that album was hiding several lost Jackson gems that surely were being prepped for single releases with amazing videos (apparently there was a humdinger being developed for "Unbreakable"). I've no doubt if he hadn't fallen out with his label and dumped the album, it would have gained new levels of popularity due to the success of later singles.

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

If sales and productivity are a yardstick for success then Barbara Cartland must be Britain's greatest novelist of the twentieth century.

I don't doubt that Jackson's career has been his life for, well, ever really, and he seems to have had some clever people behind him so that every new album or tour became a massive worldwide event. But I stand by my original point- that his success as a solo artist has been based on a style that you really need to be under 40 to be able to pull off, and you can't for example imagine him doing an unplugged album. Nobody wants to see him still trying to moonwalk at 70.

[Carol Baynes]

Yeah, "Earth song" did sell plenty and I actually don't mind it, but it's a question of taste, and if you loved the sound of The Jackson 5 and early Michael, there's a chance you might not like the sound of him in the mid '90s...I guess I fall into that category.
But I still stick by the opinion that he wasn't as good come the '90s and beginning of this decade, regardless of what quantities he was selling (which was kind of my point really).

You're obviously a big fan to stick up for him so much, but it's my opinion that he wasn't the creative force that he was, and I'm confident it's an opinion shared by a significant majority. However, I do expect something special from him next time and the long absence and probable marketing overload will probably catapult his next single to no.1. Let's just hope it's a good one!

Interestingly, when I said "Jackson was still a feature in the worldwide charts until fairly recently, as you say. But has he really been doing that well", we were actually agreeing with each other... I was actually thinking of "recent" as in circa 2001 onwards.

Also worth mentioning is how little Jackson's precence impacts on some of us. I was 22 when "HIStory" came out so it's no wonder I viewed him as such an irelevance as I'd got into other things- his new studio album was (I cynically thought) propped up by a greatest hits package and I didn't like the new stuff. My music taste had moved on, and Jackson was off my radar by then so my view of him is different from yours I imagine, especially as the Michael I knew and loved in the early '80s has long gone (he doesn't even look the same! )

[Si Hunt]

If sales and productivity are a yardstick for success then Barbara Cartland must be Britain's greatest novelist of the twentieth century.

Granted, but what else is there? You know, he can make an album that millions of people love and you're entitled to say you don't like it. But what's your point? It is, however, silly to imply that the phase of his career between "Dangerous" and "Invincible" was trading off previous successes, when it was stuffed full of innovative, hugely popular songs and videos which were quite clearly successes in their own right. As we have seen time and again, "fanclub" successes usually sink the second week of release, where-as Jackson's material right up until this decade was enduringly popular. That's my point.

I don't doubt that Jackson's career has been his life for, well, ever really, and he seems to have had some clever people behind him so that every new album or tour became a massive worldwide event.

MMm. You don't like him, so it must be "his people" or "his money" responsible for the successes. He wrote the songs though, didn't he? "Earthsong" and "You Are Not Alone" and "Remember the Time" and "The Way You Make Me Feel" were creative successes, as well as commercial ones. You can ram expensive videos and statues at people, but you can't force them to still be loving the songs years later, and Jackson Best Of's to this day are still selling with those songs on them.

But I stand by my original point- that his success as a solo artist has been based on a style that you really need to be under 40 to be able to pull off, and you can't for example imagine him doing an unplugged album. Nobody wants to see him still trying to moonwalk at 70.

Agreed. Although I actually think an acoustic direction would be interesting, and do-able, I don't think he would because it's not in his personality - he wants everything to be bigger, grander, more spectacular. He's a great songwriter, but he has appalling taste which is in the area of saccarine Disney muck, military paraphanalia and gooey schmaltz. This has infected everything he's done since "Bad", but thankfully he's also an intelligent music maker and this has tended to win out. "Heal the World" might make you a bit sick, but it's got a good tune and it's hearts in the right place.

You're obviously a big fan to stick up for him so much, but it's my opinion that he wasn't the creative force that he was, and I'm confident it's an opinion shared by a significant majority. However, I do expect something special from him next time and the long absence and probable marketing overload will probably catapult his next single to no.1. Let's just hope it's a good one!

It's very easy for people to buy songs in their millions and love those songs and then years later trumpet that he's not the creative force he was. It's the old thing isn't it? Yeah, Michael Jackson, he's not done anything worthwhile since "Thriller". Oh and that "Smooth Criminal", that was cool, wicked video. And "Who Is It" was awesome. That was from 1991? Really? Oh, and "Stranger In Moscow", that was good...

People forget. So while in the mid-nineties Jackson was truly cool again - people were as enraptured with the Janet duet and the R Kelly song as they were with the birth of Prince and his Lisa Marie wedding, the radio loved him, his songs were becoming club hits even... years later, when the horrid child abuse allegations came out, it suited people to look back and pretend that he'd not been good for twenty years. It's convenient to tie in his physical degradation in the late eighties with a perceived decline in quality. And yet, you know, despite marketting and hype and the biggest name in the music business, you do not HAVE seven Top 10 singles off one album if they arn't good. People keep buying the songs if they like them, and Jackson was massively popular for far longer than people like to make out. That's my only point.

People seem to be trying to prove a point by saying "it's all opinion, record sales don't mean quality" but I've never disputed this. What I dispute is this little impression that creeps in along with the criticism that seeks to push the view that he's not done anything worthwhile since "Thriller". I think it's possibly more accurate to say that nothing he's done since has dated as well as that album... but that's what you get when you push the envelope. Besides which, "In The Closet" and "Black or White" and "Dirty Diana" are STILL great songs. Go on, put them on, let yourself go, you might be surprised. A happy side-effect (or result) of the singles-overload Carol seems to dislike is that there are far more decent hits outside of the four that people seem to remember. It's a shame they don't put "Dirty Diana" or "Will You Be There" on the radio as much as "Beat It" and "Billie Jean", they're just as good and it might make a nice change.

You can all think what you like about him or his music. But the fact is, the media has retrospectively fallen out of love with Michael Jackson. Let me tell you something. In the mid-nineties the Sun did a damning peice on Jackson just prior to the HIStory tour. They said he was out of date, irrelevent, a freak, the usual hurtful, propagandist stuff. A few weeks later, the Sun realised that the tide had turned. Michael Jackson was suddenly having number one hits again. Why? Because the songs were great! "You Are Not Alone" was a great song, and the world was starting to go Jackson-mad again. So a new article was published, this time heralding the return of "The King Of Pop" and saying how wonderful he was. The Sun is as quick to try and push the tide of opinion against someone as it is to backtrack when they realise they are in the minority. It might just happen again. Don't bet against it.

Then, no doubt, people will herald his return after "twenty years of dire records". It's like HIStory, and it's seven times platinum 18 million sales, seven hit singles and sell-out tour, never even happened...

Si.

[Stephen Morgan]

Well, I was always a Jackson 5 fan, and I think their 1975 offering Moving Violation was one of the best things they recorded while on the Motown label.
As for Michael's solo career, I still believe Off The Wall is a better album than Thriller and Bad, but that never stopped me buying them, and I never stopped Amy listening to stuff like Earth Song.
Despite the bad publicity that has dogged him throughout the latter years of his career, being fifty years of age doesn't mean he's totally written off, given the right material he could still get the hits.

[Carol Baynes]

Si still hasn't convinced me. The world was apparently going "Jackson mad" not so long ago. Well, I must have missed this. Honestly, I'm not being funny, but it's hardly Beatlemania we're talking about here is it. He had a string of hits in an age when it's probably easier for him to have them. His album sold by the bucket load, but he's paid his dues and the name Michael Jackson can sell very easily. It'd be surprising to me if he wasn't selling albums, whether he's at the top of his game or a dried up force.

I don't dislike Jackson, but I get uneasy when record sale figures and chart positions get mentioned too much. If you don't like him and don't rate his music and you have a good argument to back up an opinion about his perceived 'irelevance', record sales don't come into it much. I'm not doing that, but I've no allegience to him, so I can see both points of view and they are both as valid.

Jackson has been poular for decades, and still is. But I wouldn't bet money on everyone thinking he was so credible anymore. How much that has to do with his music makes for an interesting argument in itself!

[Captain Tancredi]

I think this discussion has gone beyond the point where I can contribute anything useful. Si and Carol have a much better command of titles and dates and I just have my opinion.

[Si Hunt]

The world was apparently going "Jackson mad" not so long ago. Well, I must have missed this. Honestly, I'm not being funny, but it's hardly Beatlemania we're talking about here is it.

You wouldn't expect Beatlemania from a man in his forties though would you? I don't know, maybe I was more in touch with the youth of the day then than you were in 1995

I don't dislike Jackson, but I get uneasy when record sale figures and chart positions get mentioned too much. If you don't like him and don't rate his music and you have a good argument to back up an opinion about his perceived 'irelevance', record sales don't come into it much.

But isn't relevance connected to record sales? Sales equate popularity, equate being "relevent" to people surely? There's not a lot else to judge it on is there, given no one persons opinion is any more important than anyone elses.

Si.

[davethesailor]

I still believe that we will see something great from Michael again. By all accounts he is constantly working and recording, so fingers crossed it's only a matter of time before something is released.

Like Si says, regarding the trial, it really only takes a few moments to read behind the headlines and actually look at the facts of the case and the trial itself to see the whole thing was a load of nonsense. I do get annoyed when people base their opinions based purely on what they have been told by the tabloids.

The fact that Michael still has sole custody of his three children surely must show that the authorities don't actually believe he is a paedophile?

[Wayne]

The fact that Michael still has sole custody of his three children surely must show that the authorities don't actually believe he is a paedophile?

I think his affinity (shall we say) with children is more of a pychological thing than anything. I always got the impression that the whole having sleepovers with kids thing is more about him wanting to be a child, than being sexually attracted to them.
It's hard to believe he's 50. I wonder if he's happy? With what he's done to himself, you can't help but wonder if he's ever been happy for years. Poor sod. For all his money, i wouldn't have his life in a million years. I wonder what he'd look like now if he hadn't had all that plastic surgery? Much better than he does had he he not turned himself into a one man freak show that's for sure.
Whenever i see him on the news or whatever, i just think it really is one of the saddest of things. And i mean that with real meaning of the word. Not the modern 'saddo' type meaning. I'm not a fan of his music, but i do genuinely feel pity for him.