I was turned off MJ long before the child molestation charges. His speaking voice was a shock and then when I found out what his parents did to him so he wouldn't lose his voice I felt ill every time I saw him and repulsed when I heard him speak. Entering puberty myself at about the same time I found out about his hormone alterations I was grateful and proud of my croaking, cracking voice. Mike should have been proud and excited about his body changes as well but instead I'm sure he was made to fear it by his controlling father to get him to take the shots. He became a freak in my eyes and all the bad press and 'skin conditions' that followed just reinforced my opinion.
There is no denying the child and man could sing. I'm no judge of dance but clearly the child/man could also perform. It also seems clear Mike was an extremely focused individual and worked very hard at his craft. These combined with marketing made him a success. I have to respect that and I do. I do find it ironic that a man that spent his entire adult life attempting to erase his blackness to the point of physically deforming himself and hiring white folks to create his children is lauded for 'bridging the gap' between whites and blacks. Ironic just doesn't cover it. I'm baffled. Black artists in the rock world whom I think had much more of a 'gap bridging' effect would be guys like Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix. dj On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Michael Berkovits<[email protected]> wrote: > > As far as I know, the "special shoes fitted into slots in the stage > floor which made the moves possible" has to do with the physically > impossible leaning at a 30 degree angle that he did in the Smooth > Criminal video. The Moonwalk is a move that anyone can do without > special shoes. MJ just did it better than most, as he did most dance > moves better than most. > > On Jul 10, 7:20 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think Diane Sawyer explained the moonwalk as special shoes fitted >> into slots in the stage floor which made the moves possible. >> >> I agree with your assessment of Jackson and two teens at the time >> never were interested. An older brother liked Prince for a time. >> >> Now, Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington are in an >> entirely different class in my personal view. >> >> I simply tuned out the entire circus event that I was forced to view >> till reporters got around to mentioning seven USA dead in Afghanistan. >> >> On Jul 8, 7:51 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Rather than derailing Molly's thread on beauty, here's a new one continuing >> > my discussion with Slip on Michael Jackson and art. Of course, anyone else >> > is welcome to contribute. >> >> > 2009/7/8 Slip Disc <[email protected]> >> >> > > Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is pertinent but only in the >> > > context of that era and Jackson in this era. Equally they crossed the >> > > line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling spectacle. >> >> > Each to their own. If crotch-grabbing/thrusting is your bag, then more >> > power >> > to you! If you think that the moonwalk was art -- rather than a fun/cheesy >> > gimmick -- then that's okay too. >> >> > I found nothing Jackson produced to be "mind-bloggling". He was labelled >> > the >> > "King of Pop", but pop -- by its very nature -- is asinine, disposable, and >> > commercial... with due exception given to the genres of indie pop and C86. >> > See: >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop >> >> > Of course >> >> > > if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such >> > > extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, I, as well as others, >> > > would concede to your view. >> >> > I can only assume this is a joke -- often hard to tell if we're not >> > face-to-face -- or you have had very limited exposure to music. I am happy >> > to talk about music and could offer up examples for longer than you'd >> > likely >> > care to hear them. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll give >> > you a single, and I think comparable example, of a male solo writer and >> > performer: David Bowie. >> >> > > I personally have no interest, never had, >> > > in the Jackson attraction. I am only motivated by your lack of >> > > recognition of the innovation, >> >> > Innovation is a serious word to throw around in music; I suggest you >> > proceed >> > cautiously with the examples I am looking forward to you offering up. I'd >> > be >> > particularly cautious when referring to Michael Jackson's contributions, >> > however, because, as I am sure you know, he did very little himself... thus >> > any credit for innovation will be, at the very best, diluted. >> >> > > Art is something of a misnomer >> > > in that people will and are paying thousands of dollars for >> > > contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an artist styled in >> > > Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage". So in that sense, your >> > > view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form is reflective of your >> > > lack of understanding what "art" is all about. >> >> > Mend your tone a little, Slip. >> >> > Ian > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
