> I've gotten a few emails, and have read a few middle-aged white guys, about
> how "overrated" MJ was, how plastic, phony, and worst of all, pop. Anyone
> who's worked in or around showbiz knows just how fucking talented this guy
> was. Few performers connect with an audience like MJ did. That's not luck --
> that's work and sheer talent.
>
> But even if you've never been onstage, been applauded by an audience, MJ
> could still speak to you. He transcended all those categories. Only the
> greats can pull this off, and MJ was one of the greats.
>
I'm torn on this account. On the one hand, MJ was phenomenal at what he did. On the other hand, maybe this is nitpicking, I think its crap that few performers connect with an audience - even huge audiences - like he did. My feelings about MJ are a lot like my feelings about Reagan - without a doubt hard work and mesmerizing talent are part of the deal but romanticizing this guy and his gift(s) - which you are probably not doing - veils more than it illuminates.
I had this long rant that name-checked Sly Stone, Bob Marley, Public Enemy, Nirvana, Madonna, the Stones, REM, U2, Snoop, Radiohead, Marshall Mathers The White Stripes, the Dead, Peter Gabriel, Neil Young, Ian Curtis, Townes van Zandt, D Boon, Bob Mould, Kim Gordon, Jay Farrar, Sleater-Kinney, Vic Chesnutt, Howe Gelb, and the Black Angels... but it all comes down to this...can I appreciate his talent and hard work without having his music speak to me 'cuz I can't forget the greater depth of Marvin Gaye and Otis Redding, much less the arguments of Horkheimer and Adorno, Dick Hedbidge, Robert Palmer (the RS/NYT reviewer/blues musician), Greil Marcus or Jeff Chang?