Here's a great video for the song <i>They Don't Care About Us</i>:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvWMLAWrEjU

Another version of the song shot in a shantytown in Brazil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqQ2JcQWGs&amp;feature=channel

This was made a day before his death:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtKshycrCrs&hl=en&fs=1&]

Folks in Harlem singing "Rock with You" outside the Apollo Theater last night:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0UjTnS6LM&hl=en&fs=1&]

Rare clip of the Jackson 5 departing from the clean Motown sound into an incredibly funkadelic rendition of Walk On By:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMmfdmTB40A&hl=en&fs=1&]

So much has been said about Michael's whitening. Sad example of self-hatred? Along with fusing funk and rock as the foundation of American music, 'post-racial' before it even existed? Reminded of the interrogation scene from Three Kings. "What is the problem with Michael Jackson?" an Iraqi soldier asks a wayward American. "Your country make him chop up his face." He did it to himself, the American protests, but his interrogator insists: "Michael Jackson is pop king of sick fucking country."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx_zvaEQfzk&hl=en&fs=1&]

Thank you Koba for "Iran Protest Anthem" video. This was so amazing to me, that I have now sent word of it to everyone I know. Who says art/music isn't powerful, and in this case the music of Michael Jackson.

It is hard for anyone to dispute Michael Jackson's profound creativity and/or talent, but as part of the ever-present <i>exploitation</i> of this artist, the media is already in a frenzy--did he die from abuse of prescription drugs? as if that matters. It's fairly obvious, it matters little to the people who appreciated his artistry.

On the AP today, just below articles on Michael Jackson, there was this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

"Iran cleric: Some in Unrest Should be Executed"

I can't help but respond to Koba's comment Nº 6, without adding a personal anecdote, because in Michael Jackson's case, I don't think it was a question of self-loathing. (Not that Koba is insinuating that.)

But IMO the way an artist's image is manipulated by those in control of "the industry", and various reactions by different artists, is more telling.

In the mid-60s I worked for Motown Records. My icon was Malcolm X. Apparently The Temptations felt the same. The Temptations took a stand against konking their hair and wanted to be au natural with rather short Afros. Berry Gordy threatened to dismiss them and not further acknowledge their contract. The Afro went against the image (and attempts at assimilation) at the time. Well, I wrote up and circulated a petition, and The Temptations became my personal cause célèbre. In the end, The Temptations stood fast and won, and if you notice, pre-Jackson Five, many Motown artists were no longer konking their hair. A minor story in thousands of stories, but at the time fairly significant.

Miles, that's a great story and quite telling of the times.

An example of Michael Jackson's influence on hip-hop, a "sample map" - http://www.buzzfeed.com/ries/michael-jackson-sample-map-6y

This is not <i>directly</i> related to Michael Jackson, but since the juxtaposition of the following article (and debate!·%&amp;!) was right under all the more or less tabloid reporting of his death, I couldn't help but think--sometimes things get pretty surrealistic. (And in <i>these</i> times, no less):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_us/us_providence_plantations

"RI closer to changing state name over slavery"

Can't resist lifting two paragraphs from the above:

<blockquote>"Opponents of the name charge argue that "plantations" was used at the time to describe any farming settlements, regardless of slavery.

"Rhode Island merchants did, however, make their fortunes off the slave trade. Slaves helped construct Brown University in Providence, and a prominent slave trader paid half the cost of its first library."</blockquote>

Interesting day at work re Michael Jackson.

I work in a call center for a small regional cell phone company. There were about 30 of us and 5 supervisors there today. 90% of my co-workers are Black and in their twenties, mostly women but a few men.

The supervisors [white] and a few of their toadies, around noon, decided to have a "moonwalk contest." Which they proceeded to do at the top of their lungs right in the middle of our work area.

After about half an hour I instant-messaged the young Black guy seated next to me: "Is it just me, or is this really insulting?" He agreed, admitting he was a huge MJ fan.

We agreed it was a little more than insulting, and no Black coworkers joined in the snarky shenanigans. Most of us, on break, enjoyed the all-day BET coverage of spontaneous celebrations around the world of Jackson's life and music, no matter what we thought of how the media made him seem like a freak and unacceptable.

...

An excellent analysis of Jackson's surgical transformations appears in David J. Skal's brilliant history "The Horror Show," and is well worth a few hours. A fine materialist analysis of culture and genres written in a very fun and non-jargon style.

Jay

This just reminds me of how much the 1980s sucked.

Jackson was a man utterly consumed with racial self-hatred. He also had the artistic talent to express it and to come to terms with it. But chose not to.

Why not. Well, in 1979, he put out his first "adult" album Off the Wall and the next year, Ronald Reagan, above all the president of the white backlash, began his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi talking about "states rights".

In other words, had Jackson decided to confront the racial issue head on, he would have been less rich, less famous, less worshipped around the world, and probably alive today.

Springsteen was little better. Even though he "came out" as a leftist in the late 1980s, in the early and mid-1980s, when he was at the height of his fame and influence, he tried to have it both ways. "Born in the USA" wasn't really a conservative, pro-Reagan album if you looked at the lyrics, but it certainly SOUNDED THAT WAY when you listened to it.

And Madonna just spent the decade ripping off black, gay culture and selling it to MTV.

Stanley how did Springsteen try to have it both ways? Born in the USA is an angry song on an angry album. Even Dancing in the Dark, quite possibly the most pop sounding song on the album is in fact a lyrically a dark song. Springsteen has gone through many cycles of making art albums than following them up with pop sounding ones. Springsteen followed born to run with a trifecta of morose albums - Darkness on the Edge of Town, The River and Nebraska. Then he made Born in the USA. In fact during the recording of Born in the USA Springsteen fought battles with the E Street band over the sound on the record.

Bruce wanted a gritty darker sound but Steven Van Zandt pushed hard for poppy songs and sound. And if anyone in the E street band is a leftist its Van Zandt. And if there was any ambiguity about the message of "Born in the USA" Springsteen who'd been making progressive statements long before the 80s "came out" only to the media to clarify the message of the song.

And while I am no real fan of Michael Jackson I dont see what the debate is over whether "Off the Wall" is his first "adult" album while he owes as much to gay culture as Madonna.

"sounded that way"? What does that even mean? That the chorus of Born in the USA was appropriated by rightists who could even bother to read the lyrics is hardly Springsteen's fault. I remember back in the mid-80s having a discussion with an RCYBer who had a whole analysis of why Springsteen, Mellencamp and the band we were listening to in a bar (the Jayhawks) were all social patriots and why my work supporting the P-9 strikers was a waste of time. It was a sort of a cartoon mirror-image of those that would lionize the white American working class.

Let's open another can of worms.

As for Michael Jackson's body, there has been much speculation as to the changes in his physical appearance including his skin tone. Jackson has always claimed he suffered from vitiligo and the first noted surgical procedures where two nose jobs after a bad break during a dance practice. What surgeries MJ had after these procedures is pure speculation. If and why he had other surgeries and medical procedures are again pure speculation. If he had vanity surgery well so have both his sisters.

MJ may have wanted to look different but I have no idea if he wanted to look white.

Do people who tan want to look Black?

I think its equally plausible that he wanted to look more feminine and youthful while many queer folks point to his video scream as a significant statement about his gender expression.

Others point to the same video and suggest he wanted to look most like his sister. Still if there is a narrative through MJ's life its an obsession with youth and childhood. In this he is not alone.

Saoirse pointed out --

<blockquote>"Still if there is a narrative through MJ’s life its an obsession with youth and childhood. In this he is not alone."</blockquote>

(Probably because he never really had a childhood...) and I might add, as far as plastic surgery, and that M.J. "is not alone"...omg...no further explanation needed.

But the real point to me is--how warped capitalist society is, and its further warping of other societies -- culturally.

The obsession with "staying young" (and some sort of false hope at immortality), which is an impossibility since we start to die the minute we're born, is big big business. And not only that, elders -- the ones who <i>deserve</i> respect (not all do) -- forget it.

In my head (which is staple free BTW), there's not all that much difference between the <i>speculation</i> (!--again as Saoirse said) about M.J. wanting to be white, than those who want to eternally bathe in the fountain of youth. "Just beat it!" already already.

And the "looking youthful" crap isn't just happening in Beverly Hills. People all over the world have bought into this (even in those cultures where being older used to be respected)...so some woman who can't afford a tortilla somehow manages to have her lips injected with collagen and has her face stapled to her scalp.

Another very sad commentary on plastic surgery: am sure lots of you have read that a number of unemployed people (mainly women of course) in the U.S., who are 35 or over 40, are now having plastic surgery in hopes that that will increase their chances of getting a job.

As far as Springsteen, or even M.J., in terms of their "artistry"--and IMO you could include The Clash and others in this, what do people expect from these artists? We're not talking about Charlie Daniels (or some blatant reactionary pig who happens to play guitar), but neither should we necessarily use the criteria from the Yenan Forum to sum up Springsteen or M.J., neither of whom ever claimed they were revolutionaries. And I think we have to consider what the system has done, how it operates in the cultural sphere, and how it entraps even progressive artists.

<i>“sounded that way”? What does that even mean? That the chorus of Born in the USA was appropriated by rightists who could even bother to read the lyrics is hardly Springsteen’s fault. </i>

I don't think you can embed jpegs on this site, but take a look at this publicity shot. I'll break the link so I don't get caught in the spam filter.

http consequenceofsound net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bruce-springsteen-born-in-the-usa-6.jpg

Now take a look at this one.

206.47.170.43 music_v1_1/images/bruce-springsteen-pogal-400.jpg

He knew what he was doing.

On one hand, he was trying to draw in the fratboy and white reactionary working class audience. On the other hand, he would then "clarify" the meaning of his songs in order to bring in liberals.

Compare Born in the USA to Nirvana's Nevermind (I almost typed "Neverland"). They're both loud, heavy albums. But Born in the USA is structured, static, reactionary. Nevermind is angry and loud (and Cobain would get pissed when fratboys came to his concerts) but it's also dynamic and surging.

Nevermind was written for angry, white trash Gen Xers who didn't give a crap about patriotism. Born in the USA was written for their Reagan Democrat parents.

<i>And while I am no real fan of Michael Jackson I dont see what the debate is over whether “Off the Wall” is his first “adult” album </i>

1979. The year John Lenon was shot. The year before Reagan was elected president. The year of the Iranian hostage crisis.

I think Jackson knew what he was doing to. But unlike Bruce, he just couldn't switch off the right wing imagery when the Reagan era ended.

Part of him was about making money. Part of him was about letting the Reagan era intimidate him. Had he made songs about racism or black self-hatred, he never would have become the superstar he did.

It too Chuck D and Public Enemy to finally break through Reaganism.

I think Jackson's self-hatred and fear of his father had as much to do with it as greed. But in the 1980s, greed was good, and Jackson went for the cold, hard cash.

Oops. Should be a slash.

206.47.170.43/music_v1_1/images/bruce-springsteen-pogal-400.jpg

Another photo of Jackson in some sort of military uniform with Ron and Nancy Reagan.

www nypost com/photos/galleries/gossip/celebp/20080829_michael_jackson/photo10.jpg

BTW Stanley...John Lennon was murdered in Dec. 1980.

That aside, am having trouble comparing the <i>content</i> of much of Springsteen to M.J., as well as their audiences.

But as far as M.J. goes...what about "Black and White"? "We are the world", "Bad"?

Since you brought up other artists/musicians: Would you lump Stevie Wonder into any of your categories because he has chosen a more spiritual life-path, even though Stevie Wonder <b>truly</b> revolutionized music?--content-wise a mixed bag from a rev. standpoint. (Was his campaign for recognition of MLK's birthday as a national holiday--still disputed in some U.S. states, and his song "Happy Birthday" a waste of time?)

And I think Cobain's demise might as well be squarely blamed on the capitalist system and how artists, even the loudest, more outrageous and baddest, are ultimately treated or many times co-opted.

To me, art/music/literature is not always that easy to criticize (or even uphold) with the use of some simple political yardstick.

Art can be "higher than life", and there are many more subtleties to discern. Ideally as revolutionary-minded people, we would like to see art/music serve the people, and that some very profound creative artists would not be so self-serving. But we don't live under socialism/communism, and instead live under a system that exploits those same artists who some of us are hoping produce the "perfect" lyric. (And ideally, artists/musicians should not be placed above the people either, under the guise of being creative-types.)

Are those more rebellious-sounding rappers and hip hop artists not also after the big bucks (in part) as well? Isn't art/music a commodity under capitalism?

Eartha Kitt, who caused a huge stir in the Johnson White House as invited guest artist, refusing silence as to her anti-Vietnam war stand, was forced to live in exile for many years after that. Even in later years, before her death, she was unrepentant, more recently about gay rights, and even though the content of her most popular songs were hardly political. So who, especially amongst the more progressive types in the music industry stood with Eartha Kitt all those years?

<i>Since you brought up other artists/musicians: Would you lump Stevie Wonder into any of your categories because he has chosen a more spiritual life-path, even though Stevie Wonder truly revolutionized music?–content-wise a mixed bag from a rev. standpoint. (Was his campaign for recognition of MLK’s birthday as a national holiday–still disputed in some U.S. states, and his song “Happy Birthday” a waste of time?)

</i>

You know, I don't have any real feeling for Stevie Wonder because he was before my time.

But, since I was a teenager in the 1980s, I have a visceral, visceral dislike for Jackson, Springsteen, Madonna, and all of the other superstars of the Reagan years.

Here I am, a freshman at a state university, sitting in a lecture hall listening to some pompus jackass from the 1960s lecture "us kids" about how conservative we all were. Then I'd go home, flip on the TV, and watch the culture of MTV being imposed ON US, not BY US.

Blech. I hated those years.

Springsteen I get. He's not fooling me. He played up to the Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, rake in a trainload of cash, then, in the 1990s, when he was too rich to be vulnerable, started writing songs about Amadou Diallo.

"Born in the USA", well, its lyrics might have been about a vet who was betrayed? But by whom? His government? Or those "liberals" who "stabbed him in the back"?

I suspect what you thought depended on what you believed before you came to the song. Liberals saw it as a liberal song. Conservatives saw it as a conservative song.

I have to confess that Jackson, on the other hand, I really don't get. But I do get him. And I don't get him.

And that was entirely the point. He was obviously talented, hugely so. But what was the point of all that talent?

Billy Jean? What the hell was that even about anyway?

It all seemed like a taunt. All that talent was announcing itself as being about nothing, nothing but commerce.

Getting himself photographed with Reagan? The man who began his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi? The man who ignored AIDS for 8 years? The man who helped a few hundred thousand Central Americans into their graves?

The andogyny? Well, he was only one of any number of androgynous acts in the 1980s, from the hedonistic straigh Christian Prince to the openly gay Boy George to out and out homphobic metal acts like Poison and Ratt.

Oh God did the 1980s suck.

<i>Eartha Kitt, who caused a huge stir in the Johnson White House as invited guest artist, refusing silence as to her anti-Vietnam war stand, was forced to live in exile for many years after that. Even in later years, before her death, she was unrepentant, more recently about gay rights, and even though the content of her most popular songs were hardly political. So who, especially amongst the more progressive types in the music industry stood with Eartha Kitt all those years?

</i>

You know, had one of those 1980s superstar acts acted in a genuinely risky, rebellious way and got smacked down for it, I would have appreciated it.

Just one 1980s version of the Dixie Chicks would have been great.

But even the "progressive" artists in the 1980s were all slick operators who rake in the cash while they were "rebelling". Tom Cruise in Risky Business. You get rewarded for being a little naughty.

Jackson of course WAS self-destructive, as self destructive as Kurt Cobain or Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison. But Kurt Cobain got photgraphed ont he cover of Rolling Stone wearing a dress and dissing homophobes and frat boys. Jim Morrison was Jim Morrison.

Jackson just used all that talent to AVOID expressing the racial self-hatred that was eating him. He came from an abusive family and he never quite got past covering up for that abusive father. He never quite stood up and gave dad the finger and said "fuck you" to the system.

He was a slick operator and yet he wasn't.

Well, Stanley, you weren’t around for the beginnings of (Little) Stevie Wonder, or had much interest in the adult Stevie Wonder, but I wasn’t born when Ravel, Bessie Smith or Django Reinhardt (although I was 8 yrs. old when he died), were at their peak, but I can still appreciate them aesthetically, and in some cases, even politically.


I can’t quite understand how you are so vehement in your arguments, seeing as you are a photographer, and an artist, and I suspect that there are those who don’t necessarily understand, or appreciate some of the subtleties in your own work, even though you are obviously a very politically conscious person. BTW, I check your website occasionally and while I like many of your photos, to me they are not particularly overtly political. Frankly, I’m glad for that.

Doubt that you will get much argument about how the 80s sucked, certainly politically, in terms of U.S. hegemony, and Reagan’s (who I always thought of as a cartoon character) being the vapid “smiley- face” for U.S. imperialism, when he and his class and political cohorts committed some of the most heinous crimes in U.S. history.

But the reasons for the 80s being so sucky cannot be blamed on Madonna, Michael Jackson or Bruce Springsteen, nor can some onus be placed on a more radical and rebellious group like The Clash; even though The Clash’s lyrics and music were more rebellious (“Brixton,” “London Calling,” “Sandinista,” etc.), they weren’t always overtly revolutionary. And The Clash came under a lot of criticism (“they’ve sold out”) from some of their die-hard fans, because musically they tried to develop more melodiously. (To simplify one of the dividing lines between Joe Strummer and Mick Jones, and the ultimate breakup of the band, Strummer became concerned with “cultural imperialism”, while Mick Jones was on the side of World Beat. To me, the notion of “cultural imperialism” isn’t much more than a bleeding-heart liberal façade, although as far as Joe Strummer goes, I loved and still uphold the many contributions he made to the cultural/music scene.)

<blockquote>“You know, had one of those 1980s superstar acts acted in a genuinely risky, rebellious way and got smacked down for it, I would have appreciated it.”</blockquote>

I maintain that Springsteen both in form and content, went up against the status quo in the 1980s, especially with his album “Born to Run,” songs such as “Jungleland,” “Thunder Road,”, and later “Point Blank,” “The River,”, etc. Springsteen had a huge following, including mí mismo (I was a Springsteen and Clash fanatic), and <i>through his art,</i> he unleashed thousands, mostly youth but across-generational lines, and gave us the hope and energy, in a stultifying atmosphere, that rebellion was alive and well. Even in more recent times, with his song and score to “Philadelphia” he was taking a stand against homophobia.

But he wasn’t simply flipping someone off, so I guess his efforts don’t count for much. But let’s get real, Springsteen is basically, in his <i>personal</i> politics, a populist, his roots working class—a class he has always upheld and sung about—but he’s not a revolutionary, nor does he pretend to be.

And also in the 80s, Madonna—(who one of my now adult children—emulated and revered) -- and who is personally and viscerally/musically not at all my cup of tea—-was a sensation among many like my daughter because she was anti-religious, anti-patriarchy, up in your face, etc. during an era of some of the most conservative thinking. And while her politics were not particularly conscious, she was seen as rebellious to those who were on the precipice of rebellion.

And even Michael Jackson, being the first African American put on MTV has got to count for something, don’t ya think? Throughout the 30s-60s, Black jazz artists especially, even though loved and adored artistically were segregated. And if we want to talk about co-option in the music industry, how many great Black artists were totally ripped off by the heads of the music industry, and the “Great White Hope’s” such as Elvis (or Jerry Lee Lewis), really receiving the fanfare, all the while Howlin’ Wolf, Lighnin’ Hopkins, or Robert Johnson (even Chuck Berry) were languishing in some dive somewhere. (The initial formation of Motown was really in response to the white dominated music industry.)

And in the 80s, lest we not forget, The Pretenders, Annie Lennox and the Eurythemics, etc.

IMO, culture and cultural workers and artists are a tricky call. But just like everything else in society, which is filled with contradictions, our assessment shouldn’t be reduced to some blanket statement (or what we read in &lt;People</i> mag). During the 50s, when I was in much of my childhood, what you’d always hear, and still do, is that it was the era of Ike, golf, banality, Ozzie &amp; Harriet, rah rah the Korean War, nuclear armament, nothing happened, etc. Meanwhile there was an entire subterranean generation, most starkly expressed among the Beats. A whole plethora of literature, music, poetry, and art, rebelling against the Ike image of the good ol’ U.S.A.. In other words, things are not always what they seem, and I think we have to dig a little deeper into the various layers that exist simultaneously with outward appearances.

<i>And even Michael Jackson, being the first African American put on MTV has got to count for something, don’t ya think? Throughout the 30s-60s, Black jazz artists especially, even though loved and adored artistically were segregated. And if we want to talk about co-option in the music industry, how many great Black artists were totally ripped off by the heads of the music industry</I>

Which is almost certainly why Jackson put on that ridiculous uniform (which does, it must be admitted look a bit like a Nation of Islam uninform) and got himself photographed with Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

He felt as if he had to reach out to "middle America" and make himself a superstar, if only out of some responsibility to black America not to waste his talent in some fruitless rebellion. I think Michael Jordan was acting on the same impulse, even though in his case, he was pulling back from the example Arthur Ashe and Mohammed Ali set.

And I think that will ultimately be Obama's fatal flaw. He's a conciliator. He's eager to please. He's got the entire weight of black history on his shoulders and he won't risk it. So he's great when it comes to striking the right tone towards the Iranian protesters. McCain would have had us in a war by now. But when it comes to leading a good street fight for something he believes in, forget it. He's no Kucinich (who would be some minor, angry 1980s "hardcore" band to Obama's Michael Jackson).

<i>I can’t quite understand how you are so vehement in your arguments, seeing as you are a photographer, and an artist</i>

And all these means is that I can understand in some limited way how imagery works.

Here's a photo I took of John McCain in Scranton PA (a real "Springsteen" town).

rogouski smugmug com/gallery/6004393_3eLqL#575715314_3okc7-A-LB

The artistry is all McCain's staging crew. And they know the message they're trying to express.

And here's Springsteen in the 1980s.

206.47.170.43/music_v1_1/images/bruce-springsteen-pogal-400.jpg

Notice any similarities.

Well, people I knew in college did. Every Reagan loving homo bashing fratboy LOVED Springsteen in the 1980s, loved him right up until he recorded American Skin (41 Shots).

And Springsteen deserves a lot of credit for "American Skin". But that was the late 1990s.

<i>And also in the 80s, Madonna—(who one of my now adult children—emulated and revered) — and who is personally and viscerally/musically not at all my cup of tea—-was a sensation among many like my daughter because she was anti-religious, anti-patriarchy, up in your face, etc. during an era of some of the most conservative thinking. </i>

Papa dont preach, Im in trouble deep
Papa dont preach, Ive been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, Im keeping my baby, oh
Im gonna keep my baby, mmm...

He says that hes going to marry me
We can raise a little family
Maybe well be all right
Its a sacrifice

But my friends keep telling me to give it up
Saying Im too young, I ought to live it up
What I need right now is some good advice, please

I think Spike Lee caught some of the Springsteen/Jackson cultural dynamic in "Do the Right Thing" (even though he uses Prince and not Jackson in the dialogue).

Mookie is talking to Sal's racist son Pino, and trying to corner him on all the black artists and athletes he likes.

Pino tries to pretend his favorite singer is "Bruce" (the way any good, racist hetero NYC area white guy would have in the late 1980s) but Mookie knows he really likes Prince.


MOOKIE: Who's your favorite basketball player?

PINO: Magic Johnson.

MOOKIE: And not Larry Bird? Who's your favorite movie star?

PINO: Eddie Murphy.

(Mookie is smiling now)

MOOKIE: Last question: Who's your favorite rock star?

(Pino doesn't answer, because he sees the trap he's already
fallen into)

MOOKIE: Barry Manilow?

(Mookie and Vito laugh)

MOOKIE: Pino, no joke. C'mon, answer.

VITO: It's Prince. He's a Prince freak.

PINO: Shut up. The Boss! Bruuucce!!!!

Hey Stanley...wanna give those links again? am not having any luck finding them.

Meanwhile, how benevolent to give Springsteen credit for "American Skin"--80s, 90s, whatever...he didn't have to write and perform that song...afterall, by the 90s "The Boss" was a rich superstar, right?

But I got all swept up in watching the videos on the same site as "American Skin"--and as I was watching and listening to "Dancing in the Dark"--was thinking: if you go with the music and rhythm, or simply listen to the lyrics superficially, you might think it's about a working-stiff just wanting to go have some fun. But my interpretation is-- more at the lyrical core, an exposure of the felt alienation by so many people in their daily lives, spent lives and lives spent "workin' for the man all day", and how little joy there is that just Dancing in the Dark becomes monumental momentarily.

And another thing I have always liked about Springsteen--in some of his songs, he's not afraid to write and speak about contradictions among the people, not in an antagonistic way necessarily, but in a realistic one.

<i>But my interpretation is– more at the lyrical core, an exposure of the felt alienation by so many people in their daily lives, spent lives and lives spent “workin’ for the man all day”, and how little joy there is that just Dancing in the Dark becomes monumental momentarily.
</I>

He's ripping off Allan Sillitoe's book "Saturday Night Sunday Morning" (which was written in 1960) as well as the vastly superior "Saturday Night Fever".

Saturday Night Fever had the guts to show that the sympathetic white working class guy was also a violent creep and a wannabe rapist. But in "Dancing in the Dark" the sympathetic working class white guy's just sort of a sentimental schmo. There's a blase acceptance. Oh well, this is life. I guess I'm stuck. I might as well just love my wife and kids.

And to compare Springsteen to Michael Jackson, Springsteen COULD move (as anybody who saw the "Rosalita" live in Phoenix concert video knows) but in the 1980s, he became a clumsy, pumped up, short, physically unimpressive frat guy.

Jackson, during the same period of time, could really move. There's definitely some poetry in his dancing for the 25th Anniversary of Motown. But to what end.

<i>For forty days and forty nights
The law was on her side
But who can stand when shes in demand
Her schemes and plans
cause we danced on the floor in the round
</i>

Does Jackson's dancing and singing have anything to do with a paternity suit?

What a disconnect.

Some regular pop bands have said things such as:

Styx 2005 it don't make sense:
You take one man's heart and make another man live
You even go to the moon and come back thrilled
You may a deaf man hear and a dumb man speak
So it don't make sense that you can't make peace.
No it don't make sense that you can't make peace.

You can make a transfusion that will save a life
You can change the darkness in the broad daylight
Make submarines, they submerge for weeks
So it don't make sense that you can't make peace

You know it don't make sense - you can't make peace [3x]

Or earlier Suite Madam Blue:

(Dennis DeYoung)

Time after time I sit and I wait for your call
I know I'm a fool but why can I say
Whatever the price I'll pay for you, Madame Blue
Once long ago, a word from your lips and the world turned around
But somehow you've changed, you're so far away
I long for the past and dream of the days with you, Madame Blue

Suite Madame Blue, gaze in your looking glass
You're not a child anymore
Suite Madame Blue, the future is all but past
Dressed in your jewels, you made your own rules
You conquered the world and more ..............heaven's door

America....America...America..America..
America....America...America..America..
America....America...America..America..

Red white and blue, gaze in your looking glass
You're not a child anymore
Red, white, and blue, the future is all but past
So lift up your heart, make a new start
And lead us away from here

But whatever good or bad said about Michael Jakson, there has been bands as great as Osibisa from Ghana...

Singing along the line of late comrades N'Kruma and All Pan African... Charmichael, etc. OSIBISA sang Welcome Home that can be heard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys0UEUbnJbg

<i>Some regular pop bands have said things such as:</i>

Sprawling on the fringes of the city
In geometric order
An insulated border
In between the bright lights
And the far unlit unknown
Growing up it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided
The future pre-decided
Detached and subdivided
In the mass production zone
Nowhere is the dreamer
Or the misfit so alone

and along Stanleys saying, i mean what does a thriller singing fellow or, capitalist sport heroes have really down for revolution?

With all your due respect to such artists, for instance many ways more i'd rather hear simple folk words of Stephen Foster in Old Kentucky Home....tis summer the people are gay...

Stanley wrote regarding the 1980's:

<blockquote>Here I am, a freshman at a state university, sitting in a lecture hall listening to some pompus jackass from the 1960s lecture “us kids” about how conservative we all were. Then I’d go home, flip on the TV, and watch the culture of MTV being imposed ON US, not BY US.

Blech. I hated those years.</blockquote>

Comrade, you really should have turned off the tube, and tuned into your local college radio station(s), or alternately, you might have become a fixture at your local record stores, or the music clubs during that era. Because there was simply <em>tons of great music</em> made in the 1980's (and I speak from experience since I was a college radio dj back then). The thing was though, a lot of the best music came out on small and indy labels back then, and so that stuff wasn't usually featured on MTV. Probably because MTV was designed for the sole purpose of selling the most commercial of pop music.

As for professors who had taken part in the radical events of the 1960's, personally I loved those folks! Some of them taught me a lot of important stuff that I would have never learned, or even heard about, otherwise.

Re:Michael Jackson

<blockquote>He was obviously talented, hugely so. But what was the point of all that talent?
Billy Jean? What the hell was that even about anyway?
It all seemed like a taunt. All that talent was announcing itself as being about nothing, nothing but commerce.</blockquote>

I agree that it was indeed about commerce, but I also think it was about <em>dancing and having fun.<em> Michael Jackson -- may the tormented and disturbed man rest in peace -- was <em>pure disco</em>, and disco was not (and still is not) about thinking deep thoughts. Rather, it's all about moving your body. Non stop. For hours. Hopefully among friends. This is why people loved him and his music so much. He was the epitome of a Good Time Charlie, with a large dash of Circus Performer thrown in.

Miles Ahead on Springsteen:

<blockquote>if you go with the music and rhythm, or simply listen to the lyrics superficially, you might think it’s about a working-stiff just wanting to go have some fun. But my interpretation is– more at the lyrical core, an exposure of the felt alienation by so many people in their daily lives, spent lives and lives spent “workin’ for the man all day”, and how little joy there is that just Dancing in the Dark becomes monumental momentarily.</blockquote>

I've always loved Springsteen, and I have to say that I think it's awesome that an enormous number of people just start out liking his music, and only later really have the lyrics sink into their consciousness. I love that sort of subversiveness whenever it occurs in works of culture -- because it really seems to engage people on a much deeper level than when an artist tries to simply clobber people over the head with a message attempting to force thoughts and ideas into their heads.

<blockquote>And another thing I have always liked about Springsteen–in some of his songs, he’s not afraid to write and speak about contradictions among the people, not in an antagonistic way necessarily, but in a realistic one.</blockquote>

I really like that too. Not too many popular artists can do that
either.

Re: Culture and those who create culture:

<blockquote>To me, art/music/literature is not always that easy to criticize (or even uphold) with the use of some simple political yardstick.</blockquote>

I couldn't agree more, and frankly I don't think it should be. Because Art/Music/Dance/Literature/Poetry, and even Fashion, is all about life, about being human, and expressing what that means. It is not always about politics -- although it can certainly be about that, too.

<blockquote>Art can be “higher than life”, and there are many more subtleties to discern. Ideally as revolutionary-minded people, we would like to see art/music serve the people, and that some very profound creative artists would not be so self-serving.</blockquote>

I think because culture is an expression of life through people, naturally it serves the artist who makes it AND the people on the receiving end -- by making them think about things, and see things, and hear things, in various new ways. So, culture <em>has always</em> served the people.
Moreover, it's my opinion that it has been an enormous mistake among communists to try to stamp out or stifle culture by channeling it into narrow forms of "acceptable" expression. This is something that people absolutely hate, because killing off artistic expression makes their lives less happy and fulfilling.

<blockquote>(And ideally, artists/musicians should not be placed above the people either, under the guise of being creative-types.)</blockquote>

I absolutely agree. That being said, people with a great deal of talent and creativity can very often inspire many other people to tap into their own talents and make them want to create something from their own ingenuity, and unique perspectives. In my opinion, that should be the focus of revolutionaries: to encourage talent and creativity in every endeavor and in every individual -- including the Arts, and artists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/world/africa/27zimbabwe.html?_r=1&amp;em />
If Michael Jackson is more important for progressives to focus on than, say, the special Afrikan Amerikan president aiding the devastated - revisionist-led state....

"we are the world" funds ended up where?

At least when in '70s Earth Wind and Fire sange "you are a shining star", or doing the Beatles song Got to get you into my life better than origin... Commodores pop songs talked about sweet love of humanity, that made some sense.

Stanley comparing "born in the usa" to "nevermind" is surreal. Nevermind was produced by pop punk mastermind butch vig for David Geffen's at the time new label. Geffen was buying punk bands left and right to grab up the next big thing. Compared to the first two nirvana cd's nevermind sounds like Def Lep's pour some sugar on me. its songs are purely crafted for radio consumption. Cobain acknowledged all this and addressed it on Nirvana's last cd when he bucked the label and hired Steve Albini to produce the last one. But even here he hedged his bets and hired REMs producer of the minute to produce a couple of radio friend ballots.

I just don't understand this either or thing with musicians and artists. Springsteen lifts weights and dresses like a 50s greaser so he's appealing to jocks? Nirvana as cobain said again and again at the end of his short life wanted the career of REM. Hardly the clash. Nevermind that Cobain spent the end of his life moralizing about bands like Pearl Jam being sellouts and heavy metal posers while he was secretly shooting up H and having Geffen's machine keep it from the public. We're not debating the line of organizations here we're talking about musicians and artists. I want my artists to have warts and contradictions, I want them to write art songs, ballots, pop songs and metal anthems. rock on.

I really want to echo the politics of pleasure that often gets overlooked by the revolutionary left. Michael Jackson did make disco a much dismissed form of music especially in my former heavy metal scene. But we have alot of lessons to mine from the disco scene of the late 70s and 80s.

In blue collar italian and irish neighborhoods in brooklyn it was teens and pre-teens that were listening to Jackson, Prince and disco, 70s rock including springsteen was still considered hippy music and boring by this new generation. Disco was libidnal and freeing. This is some of what Spike Lee is touching on in the dialogue Stanley is quoting from above. Spike Lee has always shown a deep love and emphathy for the italian american community while not shying away from the brutality and racism in that community.

Ck out the link to post punk band New Order's confusion filmed at nyc's enfamous Funhouse in the village. The video itself mimics scenes from Saturday Night Fever. You can still by funhouse t shirts in staten island and parts of brooklyn while murals dedicated to the club still exist in bay ridge brooklyn. The funhouse was a destination for a multi-racial scene of gay and straight working class kids from the bronx, bed stuy and bensonhurst. These kids were united in dance and pleasure not the lyrics of thunder road or the clash. I think Lee plays on the contradictory consciousness of Pino who like many jocks who played in intergrated sports teams in HS and fans of hip hop and disco did have racist feelings but had at least the potential to look beyond those feelings.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iKyPMXQb5o&hl=en&fs=1&]

Hi Mike,

as far as i read, right now i don't have access to, lots of it was spent before getting anywhere inside African people's hands. Takes me bit of time.

- - - - - - - - - -
on Are you saying it is a waste of time (or worse a sign of ideological confusion) for progressives to discuss the life and work of Michael Jackson while “more important” things are happening?

Think where that kind of guilt-tripping logic can lead us? Will it ever be correct to discuss culture or music? Aren’t there always “more important” things going on?
- - - - - - - - - -

Please elaborate. where does 'guilt tripping' lead progressive to?

What I thought an interesting Nota Bene on the Spike Lee reference.

The M.J. video "They Don't Care About Us--in Brazil" was directed by Spike Lee. And the interviews I've seen, mostly on MTV's M.J. retrospective, in the Brazilian neighborhood where the video was shot...all the people saying and impressed by -- M.J. (and Spike) would have gone to Rio or Sao Paolo, but instead chose "our" neighborhood--one of the poorest of the poor.

Am not going to get into an entire diatribe re Ka Green Red's comment about whether or not it is important to be discussing this thread in comparison to ... Mike answered that "question" and echoed my sentiments. But this has been an ongoing question amongst the Left for eons. And I can't help but think of the Maliah post re Iran--when he said, to paraphrase, that those opposing the upheaval in Iran, etc. don't really know the people.

To me the aforementioned is somewhat at the heart of this ongoing struggle about the role of art and culture both in society and revolutionary politics. And it seems to me, as an artist BTW, that what irks some on the Left is their inability to have hegemony over what (and the definitive line) the various artists are producing and creating, as if even those with the "correct" line are going to be able to have hegemony over all the various social and political forces.

Re Mike E's request;

http://www.answers.com/topic/usa-for-africa

writes...:

The considerable profits from the enterprise went to the USA for Africa Foundation, which used them for the relief of famine and disease in Africa and specifically to 1984–1985 famine in Ethiopia; critics, however, claim that this money went directly to the (often military) governments of the affected countries rather than the people.

Here is a tip of what i've read about it in Farsi long ago.

That is a tip of it. That is not to blame or otherwise on Michael Jackson as a person but rather, what happens to the funds. Clarified?

<i>Who would you rather have “homophobic fratboys” listening to…. Ted Nugent or Bruce Springsteen?

Is it a bad thing or a good thing if a progressive artist suddenly gets a large non-progressive audience?

</i>

I don't think it matters. Most homo bashing fratboys just listen to whatever is popular at the time. They even listend to Michael Jackson, Prince, Motley Crue and probably even Boy George.

It's only when a musician makes a statement too clear to be ignored (like "American Skin" or like the Dixie Chicks on the Iraq War) and when that statement gets the attention of Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity that your typical homophobic fratboy decides to think of the music in a political way.

Thus, I'm willing to bet that every single homo hating fratboy in the 1980s loved Springsteen up until the moment American Skin came out. Then he just pretended he never even like Springsteen.

In fact, Springsteen's the best proof imaginable that trying to coopt patriotic imagery for the left doesn't work. He was a monster star in the 1980s (which is why I kind of hijacked the thread since I always think of Born in the USA and Thriller together) and yet today Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews, George Bush, Karl Rove play the white working class like a violin.

20 years of Springsteen didn't innoculate the American people from "Support the Troops".

If Springsteen had been a vaccine, the FDA would have long since taken it off the market.

Just a note on charity and where the $$ goes--on another post (nuclear fallout -- China) I commented that in the 80s (oops) a very good exposé was written--"Charity U.S.A." and multi-billion dollar biz that brings in.

But noteworthy was the American Cancer Society, which spends 80% of its donations on further publicity for the association, and 20% on research...at least according to the author of "Charity U.S.A."

<blockquote>Michael Jackson was never someone associated with political activism or rebellion. But he certainly lived at many sharp intersections of race, gender, narcissist celebrity culture, intimate abuse and alienation, tabloid-hyped controversy, and remarkable artistic creation.</blockquote>

See. I knew you didn't even believe in the Revolution.